INFORMATION TO USERS This material m m produced from a m icrofilm copy of tha original documant. Whila tha moat advancad tachnotogical maans to photograph and raproduoa this documant hava baan teed, tha quality is heavily dapandant upon tha quality of tha original submitted. Tha following explanation of techniques it provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. Tha sign or " target** for pages apparently lacking from tha documant photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain tha missing paga(s) or section, they are spliced into tha film along with adjacent pages. This may hava necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. Whan an image on tha film is obiiterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that tha photographer suspected that tha copy may hava moved during exposure and thus causa a blurred image. You w ill find a good image of tha pega in tha adjacent frame. 3. Whan a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of tha material being photographed tha photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" tha m aterial. It is customary to begin photoing at tha upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from loft to right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below tha first row and continuing on until complete. 4 . Tha m ajority of users indicate that tha textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to tha understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints o f "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing tha Order Department, giving the catalog number, title , author and specific pegss you wish reproduced. 6. PLEASE NOTE: Soma pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xm o k University M icrofilm s 300 Note* 2 m 6 Road Ann Arbor. MioNeM 4S10S I I 74-27,392 BRANSON, James O tto, I I , 1919AN ANALYSIS OF PRINCIPALS' ATTITUDES REGARDING DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN SELECTED PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN. Michigan State U niversity* Ph.D ., 1974 Education, currlculun development U niversity M icrofilm s, A XEROX Company , A n n A rbor, M ichigan © 1974 JAMES OTTO BRANSON II ALL RIGHTS RESERVED AN ANALYSIS OF PRINCIPALS' ATTITUDES REGARDING DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN SELECTED PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN By James Otto Branson I I A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State U n iv e rs ity 1n p a r tia l f u lf illm e n t o f the requirements fo r the degree o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department o f Curriculum and In s tru c tio n College o f Education 1974 ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF PRINCIPALS1 ATTITUDES REGARDING DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN SELECTED PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN By James Otto Branson I I Purpose o f the Study The purpose o f th is study was to Id e n tify the a ttitu d e s o f p rin c ip a ls regarding drug abuse prevention education programs and th e ir perceptions regarding the effe ctiven ess o f d iffe r e n t drug abuse prevention education programs based on d iffe r e n t philosophies. The purpose o f the study (which was d e s c rip tiv e 1n nature) was to provide answers to the fo llo w in g general questions: (1) does a re la tio n s h ip e x is t between the perceptions o f p rin c ip a ls regarding drug abuse prevention, and (a) size o f the student body o f a school, (b) lo c a tio n o f the school, (c) le ve l o f the school, (d) type o f school, and (e) the extent o f drug use in the school, and (2) how do p rin c ip a ls perceive d iffe re n ce s 1n the e ffe ctiven ess o f drug abuse prevention education programs which are based on d iffe r e n t philosophies? James Otto Bronson I I Design o f the Study The population fo r th is study was p rin c ip a ls o f selected p u b lic schools 1n the State o f Michigan. A random sample o f 250 p rin c ip a ls selected from the elementary, ju n io r high, and senior high school le v e ls o f the p u b lic schools o f Michigan provided the basis fo r th is study. Of the 250 p rin c ip a ls contacted, 190 (76%) responded. Each respondent was requested to complete a questionnaire which consisted o f 17 questions and a b r e lf d e s c rip tio n o f the philoso ­ phies o f three d iffe r e n t drug abuse prevention education programs. S ix a d d itio n a l questions were asked w ith regard to each philosophy's e ffe c tiv e n e s s . The Instrum ent, designed by the Researcher and his guidance committee, was e n title d , Drug Abuse Prevention Education Program Questionnaire. Ch1-square te s ts fo r Independence and repeated measures a nalysis o f variance te s ts were used to analyze the re s u lts . Major Findings The s t a t is t ic a l te s ts supported the fo llo w in g fin d in g s : 1. There 1s a s ig n ific a n t re la tio n s h ip between the size o f the student body o f a school and (1) the percentage o f the student body who are re g u la r users o f drugs, (2) the percentage o f drug use in the school, (3) the seriousness o f drug problems 1n the school, and (4) the existence o f a w ritte n p o lic y f o r drug users and drug abusers. 2. There 1s a s ig n ific a n t o f the school and (1) seriousness o f (2) p rin c ip a ls 1 p o lit ic a l b e lie fs . re la tio n s h ip between the lo c a tio n drug problems 1n the school, and James Otto Bronson I I 3. There 1s a s ig n ific a n t re la tio n s h ip between the le v e l o f the school and (1) the percentage o f drug use 1n the school, (2) the number o f students who are re g u la r users o f drugs, (3) s e v e rity o f the drug problem, (4) the existence o f a w ritte n p o lic y fo r drug users, (5) how the w ritte n p o lic y 1s d is trib u te d , and (6) whether o r not drug abuse education u n its are taught p rim a rily 1n one department. 4. There 1s no apparent re la tio n s h ip between the e xte n t o f drug use 1n the school and any o f the 20 dependent va ria ble s con­ sidered 1n th is study. 5. There 1s a s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e 1n the way p rin c ip a ls perceive the e ffe ctive n e ss o f the three drug abuse prevention educa­ tio n programs which were considered 1n th is study. 6. The respondents were most 1n fa vo r o f Philosophy I I I , v a lu e - c la r lflc a tio n and decision-making s k i l ls and le a s t 1n fa v o r o f Philosophy I , fa c tu a l and leg a l Inform ation. 7. The elementary p rin c ip a ls f e l t th a t value-clar1f1cat1on and decision-making s k ills would be most e ffe c tiv e 1n reducing drug abuse 1 f taught a t the elementary le v e l. The ju n io r high p rin c ip a ls f e l t a program w ith th is same philosophy would be most e ffe c tiv e 1n reducing drug abuse 1 f taught a t the ju n io r high le v e l. The senior high p rin c ip a ls f e l t th a t v a lu e - c la r lflc a tio n and dec1s1on-mak1ng s k ills would be most e ffe c tiv e In reducing drug abuse 1 f taught a t the senior high le v e l. DEDICATION Dora E llerl Smith Mother ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author 1s deeply Indebted to many people who gave o f themselves during the many phases o f his doctoral program. A genuine sense o f g ra titu d e 1s extended to a supportive guidance committee: Dr. Keith Anderson, chairman o f my guidance committee, whose guidance, sense o f f a i r play and p e rs is te n t e ffo r ts 1n my behalf made fo r the successful conclusion o f my doctoral program. Dr. Donald J. Freeman, d ire c to r o f my d is s e rta tio n , f o r h is w illin g n e s s , always, to advise, suggest and e d it my e ffo r ts In preparing th is th e s is . tu n ity I have had I w i ll be fo re v e r g ra te fu l fo r the oppor­ 1n being the re c ip ie n t and benefactor o f his e xp e rtise . Dr. Howard W. Hickey, who supported me from the beginning, h is advice, encouragement and leadership have been so h e lp fu l In making my doctoral studies a rewarding and pleasant experience. Dr. David H. Dean, who has given so much o f h im se lf 1n my b e h a lf, his tim e, encouragement, leadership and a never wavering a ttitu d e th a t 1t can be done. Thank you David fo r the many things too numerous to mention th a t you d id to help me complete my doctoral program. 1v Or. George R. Flyers, fo r h is support from the beginning o f my doctoral program, h is warmth, encouragement and w illin g n e s s to serve on my guidance committee. I would lik e to thank my committee as a group fo r th e ir humaneness and benevolence throughout my doctoral stu d ie s. I have enjoyed my experience and a ll o f you halped make 1t p o ssib le . Thanks! To the p rin c ip le s o f the Michigan P ublic Schools whose p a rtic ip a tio n made th is study possible. Dr. John Schweitzer and Joseph Wesenbaker o f Sdcfcatlon Research Consultants, College o f Education fo r g iv in g th is study s tru c tu re . Ms. Linda Lee Carey fo r doing my ty p in g , her patience and cooperation 1n g e ttin g my e ffo r ts In readable form. Dr. Ernest L. Adams, Dr. C. W illiam Hoffman fo r the long ta lk s and encouragement during the tim e o f my docto ral studies. Dr. Troy Stearns, Dr. Gene Rex, fo r t h e ir assistance and encouragement th a t was so u n s e lfis h ly extended to me. To my fa m ily fo r th e ir f a it h f u l and u n s e lfis h support o f my e ffo r ts 1n pursuing the doctoral degree; to my w ife Mary, to my ch ild re n Jalene, CeAnn, Marianna, and James I I I , I g ive my most" g ra te fu l thanks. This degree 1s fo r you. I couTdMt have accom­ plished I t w itho u t a ll o f you and your lo vin g support. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................ v111 LIST OF FIGURES I. II. ...................................................................................... INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1 A General Overview ...................................................................... Statement o f Purpose .................................................................. D e fin itio n o f Terms .................................................................. L im ita tio n s o f the Study .......................................................... Research Questions ...................................................................... Organization o f Subsequent Chapters ................................... 1 4 5 8 9 10 RELATED LITERATURE...................................................................... 12 F orew ord.......................................................................................... 12 The Drug S cene .............................................. 12 Drug Abuse Prevention Education Program .................................... 14 The STRIDE...................................... ............................................... 16 The D AR TE...................................................................................... 19 The Role o f the School 1n DrugPrevention Education . . 22 Drugs and the L a w ...................................................................... 24 Summary . .................................................................................. 27 III. IV. METHODOLOGY.................................................................................. 29 In tro d u c tio n .................................................................................. Selection o f Population and Sample ....................................... Method o f Reporting Findings..................................................... Sum m ary.......................................................................................... 29 29 32 32 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OFD A T A ......................................... 34 In tro d u c tio n .................................................................................. D escription o f Instruments ...................................................... R e lia b ilit y o f Instruments ...................................................... D escription o f S ta tis tic a l Tests Used ............................... Independent Variables .......................................... Dependent Variables .................................................................. 34 35 35 35 36 36 vl Chapter Page P rin c ip a ls ' Perceptions ........................................................... Results o f Questions ................................................................... Philosophy E ffectiveness .......................................................... Summary o f the Results fo r Question Six ............................ 37 38 49 55 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... 56 In tro d u c tio n .................................................................................. R e s u l t s .......................................................................................... Recommendations.......................................................................... Im p lic a tio n fo r Educators ....................................................... 56 56 60 62 FOOTNOTES................................................................................................. 65 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................. 68 APPENDICES.................................................. 71 V. Appendix I ...................................................................................... Appendix I I .................................................................................. vl 1 71 72 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4.1 Location o f school and p rin c ip a ls ' p o lit ic a l b e lie fs . . 39 4.2 Location o f school and how serious 1s the problem o f drug abuse 1n your school ....................................................... 39 Level o f the school and projected Increase 1n drug use 1n the s c h o o l ...................................................................... 40 Level o f the school and percent o f students who are re g u la r users o f "hard drugs" ............................................... 41 Level o f the school and percent o f students who are re g u la r users o f " s o ft drugs" ............................................... 41 4.6 Level o f the school and s e v e rity o f the drug problem 1n the s c h o o l .................................................. 41 4.7 Level o f the school and existence o f a w ritte n p o lic y fo r drug users and a b u s e rs ....................................................... 42 Level o f the school and d is tr ib u tio n o f the school p o l i c y ...................................................................... 42 Level o f the school and e xtent to which drug education u n its are taught p rim a rily 1n one department ................ 42 Type o f school and Incidence o f school assemblies on drug a b u s e .......................................................... 43 4.11 Size o f student body (4 l e v e l s ) .......................................... 44 4.12 Analysis o f variance ta b le ..................................................... 45 4.13 Location o f schools (3 le v e ls )—means and variances 45 4.14 Analysis o f variance t a b l e ..................................................... 46 4.15 Level o f the school (3 le v e ls )—means and variances 46 4 .3 4.4 4.5 4 .8 4 .9 4.10 vl11 . . . . L is t o f Tables, Cont. Table Page 4.16 Analysis o f variance ta b le ...................................................... 47 4.17 Type o f schools (2 le v e ls )—means and variances 47 4.18 Analysis o f variance ta b le ........................................ . . . . 48 4.19 Extent o f drug use 1n schools (2 le v e ls )—means and variances .......................................................... . . . . . 48 4.20 Analysis o f variance ta b le ...................................................... 49 4.21 Philosophy I e ffe ctiven ess 1 f taught a t elementary l e v e l .......................................................................... 50 Philosophy I effe ctiven ess 1 f taught a t the ju n io r high l e v e l .............................................................. 50 Philosophy I e ffe ctiven ess 1 f taught a t the senior high l e v e l ...................................................... 50 Philosophy I I , e ffe ctiven ess 1 f taught a t elementary l e v e l .......................................................................... 51 Philosophy I I , e ffe ctiven ess 1 f taught a t ju n io r high le v e l ............................................. . 51 Philosophy I I , e ffe ctiven ess 1 f taught a t the senior high le v e l . ....................................................... 52 Philosophy I I I , e ffe ctiven ess 1 f taught a t elementary l e v e l .................................. 52 Philosophy I I I , e ffe ctiven ess 1 f taught a t ju n io r high l e v e l ...................................................................... 52 Philosophy I I I , e ffe ctiven ess 1 f taught a t the senior high l e v e l .............................................................. 53 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 . . . . 1x f LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1 4.2 4 .3 Page Elementary p rin c ip a ls ' perceptions o f the three philosophies and the le v e l where they perceived .............................. them to bemoste ffe c tiv e . . . . . . . . 54 Junior high p rin c ip a ls ' perceptions o f the three philosophies and the le v e l where they perceived them to be e f f e c t i v e .................................................. 54 Senior high p rin c ip a ls ' perceptions o f the three philosophies and the le v e l where they perceived them to bee f f e c t i v e ................................................................... 55 x CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A General Overview Drug use 1s not uncommon 1n schools. lem th a t can no longer be Ignored by educators. I t has become a prob­ Though drug abuse 1s not a new phenomenon» the su b sta n tia l number o f young people c u rre n tly Involved 1s w itho u t precedent. The f u l l dimension o f the teenage drug problem Is d i f f i c u l t to assess because o f the Ille g a l aspect. The Michigan Department o f Education Indicates a growing body o f evidence e x is ts th a t c h ild re n even as young as seven 1n the elementary school, are fin d in g access to abusive substances.^ A pamphlet published by K1wan1s In te rn a tio n a l describes the s itu a tio n as fo llo w s : The problem o f drug abuse Is not new, but 1n our Nation I t Is becoming more and more widespread. I t occurs 1n the large c i t y . In the small town, and even In ru ra l areas. I t 1s not lim ite d to people o f any p a rtic u la r area, age group, environ­ ment, o r le v e l o f Income.2 S ta tis tic s published on the number o f drug users and abusers can only be estimated. Newsweek Magazine, on February 16, 1970, reported: The use o f drugs, p a r tic u la r ly m arijuana, 1s now an accepted fa c t o f l i f e fo r anywhere from 30 to 50 percent o f a ll U.S. secondary school stu d e n ts.3 1 2 Estimates o f marijuana usage In the United States are now as high as 20 m illio n —-on the other hand, estimates o f heroin use 1n the United States are between 300 and 500 thousand, w ith larg e concentrations 1n New York, D e tro it, Chicago and other large c it y slums and other low income are as.* People com piling drug use and abuse data tend to lump a ll i drug users to ge th er, from the f ir s t - t im e experlm entor, to those who are addicted and dependent, In to one category. This tends to make the Inform ation m isleading and less useful to those persons attem pt­ ing to study the degree o f seriousness o f the drug abuse problem. Though the data may not. define the drug problem w e ll, one o nly needs to s e le c t young pfeople a t random in most any community today and ta lk w ith them about drugs to get some Idea o f the extent o f drug ,use and abuse. The problem, however, 1s not one which 1s c h a ra c te ris tic o f o nly c e rta in lo ca l communities o r s ta te s , but one o f n ational i scope. In June, 1973, President Nixon Included 1n the national budget a sum o f $248 m illio n to educate communities, teachers and students about the dangers o f drug abuse. As w ith many o f our so cia l problems, people tu rn to the schools fo r a s o lu tio n . According to B arrlns (1969), the fa c ts speak fo r themselves and In d ica te an o b lig a tio n on the p a rt o f schools to arm youngsters e a rly in l i f e w ith knowledge o f drugs. Although the federal government Is considering a new b i l l to co n tro l drugs, only education w i l l save the l i f e o r healthy bra in o f a c h ild tempted td- experiment. B arrlns (1969) fe e ls th a t 1 f p ro p e rly * 3 educated In drug dangers, most youngsters w i ll react w ith reason when the tem ptation a ris e s .5 Most w rite rs 1n the f ie ld agree th a t schools have an o b li­ gation to o ffe r drug abuse prevention education. The fe d e ra l, s ta te , and lo ca l governments are a llo c a tin g money fo r such programs 1n the schools. School a d m in istra to rs are suddenly charged w ith the respon­ s i b i l i t y o f p ro vidin g and designing an e ffe c tiv e drug abuse prevention education program. The programs which are o ffe re d have o fte n been o f the crash and piecemeal v a rie ty . Many programs co n s is t o f having p o lic e o ffic e r s come In to classrooms to t e l l the students what would happen to them 1 f they were caught using drugs I lle g a lly . The program may also co n sis t o f assembling a l l the students 1n the school auditorium to show them a film delsgned to scare students—a film which many times gives Inaccurate Inform ation. Schools may also o ffe r a one o r two day program which c o n s titu te s the e n tire drug abuse prevention program to which a youngster Is exposed (H alleek, 1970).6 There 1s a stru g g le to determine where drug abuse preven­ tio n education should be taught. Since most teachers and a d m in istra to rs know l i t t l e about the s u b je ct, subject areas and departments are re lu c ta n t to accept 1 t as p a rt o f I t s cu rriculum , though most would agree th a t I t should be taught. Some schools may Include a u n it on drugs 1n the homemaklng department, others may place 1t In science, physical education, d riv e rs 1 education, o r even have a u n it c a lle d drug abuse prevention education. In any event, the problem o f the placement o f the drug abuse prevention education program 1n the curriculum must be considered. The shortage o f q u a lifie d teachers to teach drug abuse prevention education Is another problem. School d is t r ic t s mandated to teach drug abuse prevention education and given money to do so are floundering because drug abuse prevention education c a lls fo r some expertise o f which there 1s a lim ite d supply. U sually one o f the f i r s t things educators th in k about when a new course o r subject 1s proposed Is a curriculum guide. But such a guide presupposes some knowledge o f the subject m atter. There have been many drug abuse prevention education classes where the students lean back and sn icke r and laugh a t the teacher because they know more about drugs and drug abuse from firs t-h a n d experience than does the teacher. This necessitates f a r more and b e tte r tr a in in g programs fo r teachers concerning drugs, th e ir use and abuse. The tasks th a t face school adm inistrators today are: (1) to become more knowledgeable about drugs themselves; (2) to assess the drug use and abuse problem In th e ir schools; (3) to provide In the curriculum a drug abuse prevention education program based on assessed and Id e n tifie d needs; (4) and to provide adequate tra in in g f o r teachers so they w11T become more Informed and more aware. Statement o f Purpose The purpose o f th is study 1s to o b ta in , analyze, and compare data regarding the a ttitu d e s held by p rin c ip a ls regarding drug abuse prevention education programs. 5 1. Compare the a ttitu d e s toward va rie d philosophies o f drug abuse prevention education programs. 2. Determine I f the a ttitu d e s o f the p rin c ip a ls r e fle c t the type o f drug abuse prevention education program th a t Is o ffe re d In th e ir school. Assumptions The In v e s tig a to r operates under the fo llo w in g assumptions: 1. The a ttitu d e s held by p rin c ip a ls w i ll determine the degree o f Implementation a drug abuse prevention program w i l l have In a given school. 2. I f the a ttitu d e s o f the p rin c ip a ls about the drug abuse prevention education programs are known, i t w i ll help In planning r e a lis t ic programs through cooperating planning. 3. Inform ation regarding the a ttitu d e s held by p rin c ip a ls regarding drug education programs may be o f value 1n b rin g in g about changes 1n cu rre n t p ra ctice s o f drug abuse prevention education. 4. Such Inform ation may also help others who may wish to In s titu te drug abuse prevention programs 1n t h e ir schools and communities. D e fin itio n o f Terms The reader may b e tte r understand th is study 1 f c e rta in terms are I n i t i a l l y c la r if ie d . 6 Drugs Any chemical th a t m odifies the fu n ctio n o f liv in g tis s u e , re s u ltin g 1n psychologic o r behavioral change.7 Drug Use Where the e ffe c ts o f a drug sought can be re a liz e d w ith minimal hazard whether o r not used th e ra p e u tic a lly , le g a lly , o r as prescribed by a physician.® Drug Abuse Where drugs are taken o r administered under circumstances and a t doses th a t s ig n ific a n tly Increase th e ir hazard p o te n tia l, whether o r not used th e ra p e u tic a lly , le g a lly , o r as prescribed by a physician.® Drug Dependence Drug dependence 1s a s ta te o f psychological or physical dependence, o r both, which re s u lts from ch ro nic, periodic*, o r con­ tinuous drug use.1® H abituation The psychological desire to repeat the use o f a drug In te r m ltte n tly o r continuously because o f emotional reasons.11 A ddiction The physical dependence upon a- d ru g .12 Drug Abuse Prevention Education A planned program o f In s tru c tio n 1n the values, lim it a ­ tio n s and hazards o f drugs as a fo rce 1n students' liv e s . 13 Community School Community School—A community school provides preschool a c t iv it ie s fo r c h ild re n and th e ir parents, continuing and remedial education fo r a d u lts , c u ltu ra l enrichment and re c re a tio n a l a c t iv it ie s fo r a ll c itiz e n s , o ffe rs technical services to community groups and provides a re g u la r K-12 In s tru c tio n a l program. The services may be provided a t any time during any day o f the week throughout the calendar y e a r.14 Noncommunity School A ll other schools which provide a re g u la r K-12 In s tru c ­ tio n a l program.13 A ttitu d e Behavior representative o f fe e lin g or c o n v ic tio n s , a d is p o s i­ tio n th a t 1s p rim a rily grounded 1n a ffe c t and emotion and 1s expressive o f opinions ra th e r than b e lie fs .1® N arcotic A n a rc o tic Is a drug th a t re lie v e s pain and induces sleep. I t 1s the group o f drugs th a t are made from opium o r opium d e riva ­ t iv e s . 17 8 Hard Drugs H eroin, morphine, codeine, cocaine, amphetamines, and c e rta in se d a tive s.^8 S o ft Drugs M arijuana, hashlshs, glue-sn1ff1ng, LSD (Lysergic A d d D iethylam ide), m escalllne, p s ilo c y b in , p s llo c y n , other h a llu c in a to ry 19 substances. In 1965 the World Health Organization recommended the term "drug dependence" to replace the two terms "h a b itu a tio n " and "addic­ t io n ." The cu rre n t trend 1n educational lite r a tu r e Is to use only the term "drug dependence" to mean e ith e r o r both h a b itu a tio n and a d d ic tio n . For the purpose o f th is study the terms, "drug dependence," "h a b itu a tio n ," and "a d d ic tio n " w ill be used In te rc h a n g e a b ly . L im ita tio n s o f the Study This study 1s a survey o f the a ttitu d e s o f school p r in c i­ pals 1n selected schools 1n Michigan. The schools surveyed w i ll be selected a t random. The a ttitu d e s o f those selected w i ll be measured by a Drug Abuse Prevention Education Program Questionnaire and w ill consider the p rin c ip a ls ' views as to content o f three d iffe r e n t models o f drug abuse prevention education programs. No attem pt w ill be made to generalize beyond the sample o f th is study as 1t 1s re a liz e d by the In v e s tig a to r th a t a ttitu d e s are tr a n s ito ry In nature. The 9 a ttitu d e s disclosed w i ll be reported as perceived a ttitu d e s and not fa c t. Research Questions The researcher assumes th a t a ttitu d e s la rg e ly determine the action s educators w i ll take 1n proposing and/or Implementing drug abuse prevention education programs. I t 1s reasonable to assume th a t these In d iv id u a ls have d iffe r e n t and perhaps c o n f lic t ­ ing a ttitu d e s regarding drug abuse and drug abusers. Therefore, since a ll the selected p rin c ip a ls , by the very nature o f th e ir jo b , are In leadership p o s itio n s regarding programs and other physical and human resources which can be brought to bear on the drug abuse prevention programs, 1 t Is Im perative th a t these concerned persons know the a ttitu d e s r e la tiv e to drug abuse prevention education programs. The lo g ic a l questions are: 1. Is there a re la tio n s h ip between the size o f the student body and the a ttitu d e s p rin c ip a ls have regarding drug abuse preven­ tio n education programs? 2. Is there a re la tio n s h ip between the lo c a tio n o f the school (urban, suburban, r u r a l) , and the a ttitu d e s p rin c ip a ls have regarding drug abuse prevention education programs? 3. Is there a re la tio n s h ip between the leve l o f the school (elementary, ju n io r high, se nio r high),and the a ttitu d e s p rin c ip a ls have regarding drug abuse prevention education programs? 10 4. Is there a re la tio n s h ip between the type o f school (community o r noncommunity), and the a ttitu d e s p rin c ip a ls have regarding drug abuse education programs? 5. Is there a re la tio n s h ip between the e xte n t o f drug use 1n the school and the a ttitu d e s p rin c ip a ls have regarding drug abuse education programs? 6. Do p rin c ip a ls perceive d iffe re n ce s 1n the e ffe c tiv e ­ ness o f drug abuse prevention education programs which are based on d iffe r e n t philosophies? The answers to the research questions would enable educa­ to rs and others In a community d ir e c tly concerned w ith the drug problem to : 1. Recognize the need o f a drug abuse prevention education program fo r the school and community. 2. A s s is t those concerned w ith the drug problem to be more e ffe c tiv e 1n planning a r e a lis t ic drug abuse prevention educa­ tio n program based on assessed needs o f th e ir respective communities. Organization o f Subsequent Chapters The content o f Chapter I has Included a general overview to the study, the purpose o f the study, d e fin itio n o f terms, research hypotheses, methodology and organization o f subsequent chapters. In Chapter I I a review o f the lite r a tu r e re la te d to the study 1s presented. I t Includes a discussion o f the "drug scene" as I t 1s 1n our s o c ie ty , the ro le o f the school 1n drug education and an account o f some on-going drug abuse prevention education programs. 11 Chapter I I I comprises a d e s c rip tio n o f the methodology used 1n th is study. The sample, chosen from the Michigan Education D irec­ to ry , 1974, w ill be a p roportionate random s e le c tio n o f elementary, ju n io r high and se nio r high school p rin c ip a ls In Michigan. Chapter IV organizes, analyzes, and presents the data and fin d in g s o f the study. Chapter V presents the conclusions and recommendations o f the study as based on the fin d in g s . CHAPTER I I RELATED LITERATURE Foreward This review o f the lit e r a t u r e w ill serve to Introduce the reader to a background body o f knowledge which w ill make the study more m eaningful/ The, lite r a tu r e regarding drugs w i ll be d ire c te d ' p rim a rily w ith : 1. The "drug scene" 1n American s o c ie ty . 2. The ro le o f the school 1n drug education. 3. Drug abuse prevention education programs. 4. Drugs and the law. The Drug Scene "Americans l i f e 1n a p111 c u ltu r e ." This 1s a statement th a t Is heard o fte n these days along w ith , "What 1s the e xte n t o f drug use ,today"? I t 1s d i f f i c u l t , 1 f not Im possible, to obtain v a lid data—estimates lik e , 20 m illio n pot smokers 1n the United States alone, 1o f every 3 students e ith e r uses o r has experimented w ith drugs 1n one form or another, are easy to o b ta in , but Impossible to su b sta n tia te . These fig u re s are Increasing ra p id ly . Our high school, ju n io r high and even elementary school students are fncreast 21 In g ly using a v a rie ty o f drugs and In to x ic a n ts . 1 13 Some o f the drug abusers In our schools use hallucinogens such as LSD, STP and Hashish when a v a ila b le . They s n i f f glue and fre o n ; eat m orning-glory seeds; experiment w ith e th yl c h lo rjd e ; d rin k paregoric and cough syrup; and smoke ca tn ip and oregano. even In je c t m ilk , mayonnaise and peanut b u tte r. Some When they become 111, they th in k th a t the fe e lin g they have 1s a “ h ig h ." The "h ip p ie " and the "slums" are two other facets o f the drug scene. Other scenes are the business man and his three man- hattan lunch, the a ctin g community w ith I t s "uppers" and "downers" which make the day possible. The tru c k d riv e r who has to have benzedrine 1n order to make his long runs. A ll th is use o f drugs suggests th a t the next generation may be more dependent on drugs than the present one. A m a jo rity o f our youth has no desire to r a d ic a lly change th e ir way o f l i f e , but a m in o rity believes th a t I t must change by whatever means. Students may be divided in to s ix major groups w ith reference to drug abuse. 1. Chronic drug users who may o r may not be members o f a drug su b -cu ltu re . 2. Experimenters w ith drugs on the frin g e s o f the sub­ 3. Students who associate w ith and s o c ia lly accept drug c u ltu re . users, but who are not users themselves. 4. Students who know drug users but do not s o c ia lly accept them o r otherwise associate w ith them. 14 5. Students who know drug use 1s a problem in th e ir school, but do not personally know any people who are users. 6. Students who are unaware th a t drug use e x is ts 1n th e ir sch oo l.23 The basic problem the schools face Is how best to communi­ cate w ith a ll s ix types o f students, and to provide meaningful and a ttr a c tiv e a lte rn a tiv e s to the use o f drugs, so th a t drug use can be elim inated ra th e r than Increased. Drug Abuse Prevention Education Programs When evidence began to accumulate th a t drug abuse was a serious problem among the c h ild re n and youth, many concerned c itiz e n s expressed a b e lie f th a t an education program, which could be e a s ily ordered 1n a l l schools, would provide a quick and c e rta in s o lu tio n . Educators and other c itiz e n s are now re a liz in g th a t a meaningful educational program on drugs Is not easy to Implement and the . . 24 re s u lts are uncertain. Among the e a r lie s t type o f drug education program was what might be c a lle d the assembly type program. The e n tire student body 1s assembled 1n a large area and given exposure to film s on drugs. They hear a ta lk by a physician regarding the harmful e ffe c ts on the body 1 f one misuses drugs. Following Is a ta lk by a policeman regarding the law and p en altie s 1 f one 1s convicted o f Ille g a l use o f drugs. I t 1s a real "scare the h e ll out o f them" program. Thlis type o f program might be given a nnually, as the only exposure to 15 “ drug education" the student would have th a t p a r tic u la r year. According to Wold (1972), these programs are most prevalent and le a s t e ffe c tiv e .25 The common p a tte rn o f having physical education o r health teachers set aside one u n it 1n the curriculum to le c tu re on the dangers o f drugs 1s v ir t u a lly useless. pe Even some o f the new w ell-m otivated programs s u ffe r from a " c r is is " approach. An evaluation o f programs conducted 1n fo u r high school classes showed th a t "s h o rt-te rm programs, even though very so ph isticate d and In te n s iv e , may have l i t t l e o f students regarding the abuse o f drugs." Impact on the a ttitu d e s The study concludes th a t "the primary value o f the p ro je c t 1s th a t 1 t adds a note o f caution to those who would set aside a s in g le day fo r drug education and be 27 s a tis fie d w ith the re s u lts . Interview s w ith high school students 1n C a lifo rn ia reveal a strong d is lik e fo r r e p e titiv e programs focus­ ing on inform ation alone. The students g re a tly preferred continuing discussions on the reasons f o r drug use. Op D is s a tis fie d w ith past re s u lts , many school systems are p resently try in g a v a rie ty o f new preventive education methods to discourage drug abuse. The c it y o f Saginaw, Michigan has adopted the fo llo w in g philosophy on drug use and abuse education w ith in It s school: I t recognizes th a t p h y s ic a l, em otional, mental, and social w ell-b e in g are fa c to rs th a t enable students to f u l f i l l th e ir o bje ctives 1n l i f e . In d iv id u a l o b je ctive s can, however, be Impaired by the Improper use o f drugs, alcohol and tobacco. The need recognized, th e re fo re , 1s th a t the Saginaw Public Schools must provide In s tru c tio n to a ll regarding the e ffe c ts o f mood-modifying substances on the mind and body. 16 Central to the goals o f our to ta l drug curriculum 1s the need to develop In our schools an environment, where boys and g ir ls can fe e l the s e c u rity , develop the sense o f personal d ig n ity and adopt or acquire a value system th a t w i ll support t h e ir desires to make responsible Judgments and decisions regarding the proper use o f d r u g s . 29 Another study re c e n tly reported suggests th a t the "e a sie st" type o f drug education program—a fa c tu a l accounting o f drug e ffe c ts and the use o f le c tu re s , discussions and audio-visual m a te ria ls fo r ten weeks may a c tu a lly be counter-productuve. S tu a rt (1972) found th a t ju n io r high students 1n Ann Arbor exposed to th a t type o f drug education program showed an Increased ra te o f experim entation, e s p e c ia lly w ith m arijuana, 1n comparison to a co n tro l group; and th a t a nxie ty about drugs was reduced. There was also a small increase In the s e llin g o f marijuana and LSD.3® In a c r it ic a l review o f studies s im ila r to S tu a rt's , Nowlls s ta te d , " I am more and more re in fo rce d 1n n\y c o n victio n th a t Informa­ tio n alone 1s not the answer and a t times may be c o u n te r-p ro d u c tiv e ."31 The STRIDE Program The program c a lle d STRIDE (Students, Teachers and Residents Involved 1n Drug Education) 1s a tra in in g program fo r drug abuse pre­ vention education serving C lin to n , Eaton and Ingham Counties through the loca l community mental health boards. STRIDE Is an Innovative drug abuse prevention program designed to enable In d iv id u a l communities and school d is t r ic t s to use lo ca l human resources and ta le n ts to e s ta b lis h and operate on-going, 77 Independent, e ffe c tiv e drug education programs w ith in th e ir own communities. A m a jo rity o f previous drug education e ffo r ts have con­ centrated a great deal o f e f f o r t on r e la tin g fa c tu a l Inform ation about drug e ffe c ts , and have spent l i t t l e time on other aspects o f the problem. STRIDE fe e ls th a t th is 1s not enough, fe e lin g th a t lack o f t r u s t , understanding, and communication between teachers, students and parents seems to thw art any drug prevention education program before 1t even begins. Drug problems Involve more than drugs. They Involve people— people who have o th e r problems which lead them to drug abuse. SfRIDE has also defined fo u r causal areas o f poor drug education and drug abuse: (1) lack o f Interpersonal communication s k ills and tr u s t between various population segments, (2) lack o f understanding o f d iffe r in g H fe -s ty le s and value systems, (3) mis­ inform ation concerning both legal and ille g a l drugs, and (4) inadequate personal problem -solving s k i l ls to deal e ffe c tiv e ly w ith day-to-day problems. I t 1s 1n these areas th a t STRIDE fe e ls Immediate and concentrated a tte n tio n 1s req uired . STRIDE works 1n the fo llo w in g way. I t 1s a f o r t y - f iv e hour, m ulti-phase workshop w ith the fo llo w in g o b je c tiv e s : 1. population. Reach a ll segments o f the community and school system Id e a lly , th is would be equal numbers o f parents, students and teachers p a rtic ip a tin g In the program. 18 2. Convey concrete learnable s k i l ls which can be used to counteract the above lis te d causes o f drug abuse. Each phase o f the program represents a s k i11-o rie n te d , m ini-w orkship concentrating on one o f the p re vio u sly lis te d causal areas. These phases Include: (a) o rie n ta tio n , (b) communication s k i l l s , (c) values c la r if ic a t io n , (d) drug Inform ation and c r is is tr a in in g , (e) problem -solving s k i l l s , ( f ) community development and conclusion. 3. Convey an environment where an optimum le a rn in g e xp e ri­ ence can take place 1n a sh o rt period o f tim e. Most program phases take place In small s k ill-g ro u p s operated during school hours w ith teachers and students released from classroom r e s p o n s ib ilitie s . The expense Involved 1n releasing teachers from classroom re s p o n s ib ili­ tie s 1s a lo c a l le v e l expense, w hile personnel from STRIDE are fu r ­ nished fre e o f charge. 4. Train In te re ste d lo ca l p a rtic ip a n ts as In s tru c to rs 1n a ll phases o f the STRIDE program and thereby provide the community w ith the adequate human resources needed to operate s e lf - s u ffic ie n t loca l programs. Three on-going programs were Implemented In loca l area schools fo r the 1972-73 school year. Both program: p a rtic ip a n ts and a d m in is tra tiv e personnel have fir m ly endorsed the STRIDE concept. STRIDE workshops have been accredited fo r both under­ graduate and graduate c r e d it w ith in the College o f Education a t Michigan State U n iv e rs ity .32 19 The PARTE Program The over-arching purpose o f DARTE 1s the prevention o f the d e s tru c tiv e consequences o f drug abuse among youth. DARTE (Drug Abuse Reduction Through Education) 1s a pro­ gram o f the Wayne County Interm ediate School D is t r ic t , w ith o ffic e r s 1n the same b u ild in g as the WCISD. The main emphasis o f DARTE's work has been I t s tr a in in g o f leadership teams comprised o f students, teachers, a d m in is tra to rs , counselors and social workers in various combinations. The tr a in ­ ing schedule 1s 30-35 hours o f tr a in in g , covering the fo llo w in g o u tlin e o f m a te ria ls : 1. Legal Inform ation about drugs, communications a c t iv i­ tie s , a ction planning. 2. Pharmacology, Id e n tific a tio n o f school d i s t r i c t needs, a ction planning. 3. Values c la r if ic a t io n , a ction planning. 4. Demonstrations o f yoga and Ta1 Ch1 Chuan (a lte rn a tiv e s 5. Team planning to present a ctio n plans to mock "school to drugs). board," session on games and ro le playing s tra te g ie s , and presenta­ tio n s o f a ction plans. Several elements o f the tra in in g need c la r if ic a t io n . A primary goal o f the work 1s th a t teams develop an "a c tio n plan" to Implement 1n th e ir home school d is t r ic t s . DARTE provides a c a re fu lly worked-out s tru c tu re w ith appropriate m ate ria ls to f a c i li t a t e the 20 team's e f f o r t . "Values c la r if ic a t io n " denotes a method by which p a rtic ip a n ts can acquaint themselves w ith making choices and e la b o ra t­ ing th e ir p o s itio n s on value-laden Issues. "Communication a c t iv it ie s " are stru ctu re d in d iv id u a l and group exercises through which people can learn to be more open and honest w ith each o the r. The purpose o f DARTE*s tr a in in g 1s to help p a rtic ip a n ts tr u s t one another more and be able to work together c o lla b o ra tlv e ly . 33 DARTE provided a d iffe r e n t type o f tra in in g 1n a twoevening, "a lte rn a tiv e c lin ic " which by lectures and dempnstratlons explored a large v a rie ty o f a lte rn a tiv e s to drug abuse inclu din g dance, Tal Ch1 Chuna, m editation and y o g a .^ DARTE o f f i c i a l l y came In to existence on December 1, 1971. A ll o f DARTE's a c t iv it ie s had reached almost 2,000 people d ir e c tly by February, 1973. Of these p a rtic ip a n ts , almost 500 were students. Between J u ly , 1972 and February, 1973, DARTE had d ire c t contact w ith 45 d iffe r e n t groups. In clu d in g school d is t r ic t s , health centers, community groups, and other agencies. A c tiv itie s w ith school d is ­ t r i c t s have Included value c lin ic s , program planning and e valu atio n, planning r e tra in in g , meeting w ith a ll a d m in is tra tio n s , reviewing p o lic ie s w ith lo c a l boards o f education, and second le ve l tra in in g . DARTE has developed a v a rie ty o f h ig h -q u a lity m aterials fo r drug abuse education fo r use In i t s own tra in in g program and to a s s is t others. 1. A b r ie f d e s c rip tio n o f each fo llo w s : " Things to do to B uild Communication and T ru s t. " — Contains twelve a c t iv it ie s o r experiences, along w ith a few guide­ lin e s fo r open communication. ' • . . . ■ . * _ ] 21 2 . A Handbook o f Values C la r if ic a t io n . —Provides a ra tio n a le fo r the values c la r if ic a t io n process, In s tru c tio n s fo r s ix ­ teen d iffe r e n t techniques, examples o f the approach, and a resource k it. 3. DARTE Drug Education Resource Guide. —Sections Include, (a) educational p o lic ie s , (b) DARTE's philosophy, (c) pharmacological and medical In fo rm a tio n , (d) soc1o-cultural and psychological fa c to rs , (e) law and p u b lic p o lic y , ( f ) program s-curricula fo r schools and community, (g) teaching and lea rnin g approaches (communication, a lte rn a tiv e s ), (h) consultant resources, (1) audio-visual m a te ria l, ( j ) reading l i s t s . 4. A Drug Abuse Education Demonstration M aterials K i t . — Includes the Resource Guide, film s , and a very large c o lle c tio n o f other m a te ria ls. 5. " Suggestions fo r G etting 1n Touch w ith Me and You and Us."—For elementary school teachers and c h ild re n . Includes sections on values c la r if ic a t io n , empathy, decision-making, group dynamics, communications, c r e a tiv ity development, and sensory awareness. DARTE publishes an occasional new sletter fo r the purpose o f 35 keeping In touch and announcing new developments o r In fo rm atio n . 9 One measure o f a program's success 1s the Impact 1 t has on other programs or p o lic ie s . In a memorandum to the State Board o f Education, dated March 25, 1972, a "Model fo r T ra inin g School S ta ff Personnel 1n the Area o f Drug Education" was presented. The proposal c a lls fo r the development o f rejfybnal drug education pro­ grams to be c a rrie d out by Interm ediate school d is t r ic t s across the 22 s ta te . P ublic Act 85, 1972, gave the Department o f Education money to set up three regional programs, and s p e c ific a lly named DARTE as the model to fo llo w . The purpose o f the memorandum was to explain DARTE to the re s t o f the s ta te board. has been adopted state-w ide. In e ffe c t, the DARTE process 36 DARTE's Influence In education 1s re fle c te d 1n t h e ir being In v ite d to give a workshop on values c la r if ic a t io n a t a national fe s tiv a l on a lte rn a tiv e s In le a rn in g . In the sphere o f law enforce­ ment, DARTE has re c e n tly been asked to provide tr a in in g programs fo r D e tro it p o lic e o ffic e r s and paraprofesslonals. I t seems lik e ly th a t th is e f f o r t w i ll have a substantive e ffe c t on p o lic e handling o f youth Involved w ith drugs. A fin a l Index o f DARTE's e ffe c t on other programs may be seen 1n the b oo klet, "A Handbook fo r Community-Based Drug Abuse Programs," d is trib u te d by the O ffic e o f Drug Abuse 1n Lansing. The in tro d u c tio n c ite s two p rin c ip le sources fo r the b o o k le t's Ideas, one o f which 1s DARTE.37 The Role o f the School 1n Drug Prevention Education The school's ro le 1n discharging I t s re s p o n s ib ility fo r drug education 1s d i f f i c u l t to describe because schools must serve so many populations o f various ages and stages o f Involvement uninvolvement w ith drugs. There are, however, c e rta in fundamental considerations o r p rin c ip le s which help to define the school's ro le . or These Include the fo llo w in g : 23 (a) The prim ary charge to the school 1s education o f the young entrusted to I t s care. This d e fin itio n o f educa­ tio n must embrace the a ffe c tiv e (o r fe e lin g ) as well as the c o g n itiv e (o r knowing) domain o f education and both must be measured by th e ir Impact on the behavior o f the in d iv id u a l. (b) The school 1s le g a lly and by tr a d itio n charged w ith counseling those c h ild re n and youth I t would educate. In clu d in g problems w ith use o f drugs. (c) The school 1s charged w ith p ro te c tin g the health and sa fe ty o f the youth who are placed under I t s ju r is d ic tio n . (d) The school Is one o f the In s titu tio n s in s o c ie ty charged w ith the nurtu re and re a rin g o f the young—not the only In s titu tio n created fo r th is purpose. The school must share w ith youth and other youth-serving In s titu tio n s and agencies In clud ing the home and others the re s p o n s ib ility fo r the re s o lu tio n o f the drug problems o f the young. (e) The school, to perform I t s prim ary task o f educating the young, must assess I t s problem areas re la te d to drug abuse, e s ta b lis h program goals, develop via b le c u rric u la , educate I t s s t a f f and acquire the essential teaching to o ls to conduct drug education.30 In simple language, the o nly real hope 1s education fo r prevention, and the schools must work e ffe c tiv e ly to a le r t the young to the known and suspected dangers o f in g e sting to x ic sub­ stances.39 The schools 1n dealing w ith the problems o f drug use and abuse should a lso : (a) have an adm ln-istrative p o lic y —a w ritte n p o lic y statement regarding the schools p o s itio n when a student 1s detected 1n the use o r abuse o f drugs. (b) honest approach to t e l l the tr u th about drugs, have c o rre c t Inform ation. (c) provide perspective and context—the symptom o f a ra p id ly changing so cie ty should be the context In which drug abuse 1s s tu d ie d .*0 24 In each school 1 t should be made c le a r who w i ll and can guarantee c o n fid e n tia lity when a student 1s 1n need o f counseling regarding drug problems and such guarantees should be respected.41 With respect to drug abuse the school can only support and re in fo rc e the a ttitu d e s and behaviors th a t a ris e from home su pe rvisio n, peer re la tio n s h ip s , and the o v e ra ll student environ­ ment, much o f which comes to bear before the c h ild enters school. The school can be a s ig n ific a n t fa c to r among a ll those forces th a t m otivate young people to behave responsibly 1n terms o f t h e ir own w elfare and th a t o f othe rs. As a r e s u lt o f such In s tr u c tio n , per­ haps today's school generation w i ll be able to make b e tte r Informed and more th ou g htful decisions about c u rre n t as w ell as fu tu re drug problems.4^ Drugs and the Law Drug laws have provided severe p e n a ltie s fo r v io la to rs since the e a rly p a rt o f the tw e n tie th century, y e t during th a t time the problem 1n some respects has become more acute. I t should be pointed out th a t the number o f n a rco tics add icts In th is country was sharply reduced, perhaps as much as 75%, a fte r opia te drugs were brought under federal c o n tro l. The federal government has since the e a rly 1900's passed le g is la tio n 1n an e f f o r t to co n tro l n a rco tics and dangerous sub­ stances. 1906 - Federal Pure Food and Drug A c t. —Regulates the use o f patent medicines containing opiates. 25 1914 - Harrison N arcotic Drug A c t. — Regulates manufactur­ ing and d is tr ib u tio n o f morphine, cocaine and o the r n arcotics w ith in th is country. I t 1s s t i l l the c h ie f federal law c o n tro llin g I l l i c i t n a rc o tic t r a f f i c . 1922 - N arcotic Drugs Import and Export A c t.--P ro vide s heavy p e n a ltie s f o r Ille g a l Im portation and e xpo rtatio n o f n a rc o tic drugs. 1937 - Marijuana Tax A c t. —Marijuana was placed under federal co n tro l through ta xin g power, p ro vidin g the same type o f c o n tro ls over marijuana as the 1914 le g is la tio n placed over n a rc o tic drugs. 1946 - Harrison N arcotic Act Amendment. —The 1914 law was amended to Include s y n th e tic substances having a dd lctlon -form in g o r a d d ic tio n -s u s ta in in g q u a litie s s im ila r to cocaine o r morphine. 1951 - Boggs Amendment. — Introduced mandatory minimum sentences fo r a ll n a rc o tic drug and marijuana offenses and pro­ h ib ite d suspension o f sentences and probations fo r second offenders. 1956 - N arcotic Q$ua»GontroT A c t. — Raised mandatory m in i­ mum sentences w ith the exception o f f i r s t offenders fo r possession o nly. I t p ro h ib its suspended sentences, p ro ba tio n, and parole. 1960 - N arcotics Manufacturing A c t. —Provides fo r lic e n s ­ ing and establishm ent o f manufacturing quotas fo r a ll manufacturers o f n a rc o tic drugs. 1965 - The Drug Abuse Control Amendment to the Federal Food. Drug and Cosmetic A c t.—Provlces fo r stronger re g u la tio n o f the manufacturer, d is tr ib u tio n , d e liv e ry , and possession o f 26 stim u la n ts, depressants and hallucinogens. They a lso provide strong crim in a l p e n a ltie s against persons who deal 1n these drugs I lle g a lly . The Food and Drug A d m in istratio n o f the Department o f H ealth, Educa­ tio n and Welfare was given stronger enforcement powers to prevent drug c o u n te rfle tln g . The amendments were e ffe c tiv e February 1, 1966. 1966 - N arcotic A ddict R e h a b ilita tio n A c t. —A s ig n ific a n t step toward treatm ent and r e h a b ilita tio n o f n a rc o tic a dd icts. This le g is la tio n provides fo r c i v i l commitment. 1968 - Drug Abuse Control Amendments to Federal Food. Drug and Cosmetic Act o f 1965. — Increase the p en altie s fo r anyone who I lle g a lly produces, s e lls o r disposes o f dangerous drugs, and Imposes misdemeanor penalty fo r possession. 1969 - A Supreme Court Decision. —Removed two o f the federal government's major legal weapons against the marijuana t r a f f i c when I t held th a t the marijuana tax a ct 1s unenforceable when the accused claims F ifth Amendment p riv ile g e against s e lf-In c rim in a tio n . A lso, i t declared as unreasonable the law 's presumption th a t a man w ith marijuana 1n his possession knows th a t 1t was Imported I l l e g a ll y , 43 thus v io la tin g due process o f law. Researchers 1n the f ie ld o f drugs along w ith those who choose to v io la te drug sta tu te s c o n tin u a lly question the motives behind the drug laws. The questioners seek to know 1 f the re s tr ic tio n s serve m ainly to punish v io la to rs , to p ro te c t so c ie ty from the ravages o f a drug addicted population, to keep drugs under legal c o n tro l, to p ro te ct man from his own weaknesses, to co n tro l the q u a lity o f drugs being dispensed, to prevent crim e, o r to a s s is t the a d d ict to recover 27 and become a responsible member o f s o c ie ty . U nfortunately* many o f today's youth view drug le g is la tio n as an attem pt on the p a rt o f the a d u lt world to deprive youth "the o p p o rtu n ity to express them­ selves In a mode o f th e ir own c h o ic e ."** There 1s l i t t l e doubt th a t drug laws lack consistency when 1 t comes to making "the punishment f i t the crim e ." Although the view th a t drug use 1s a m edical-social problem and not a c rim i­ nal a c t iv it y 1s gaining 1n p o p u la rity , the simple use and possession o f drugs remains a prison offense. In fa c t, 1n many s ta te s , the 45 penalty fo r the sale o f marijuana to a minor 1s death. State laws on Ille g a l drug a c t iv it ie s d if f e r from federal laws and many times are more s trin g e n t. g re a tly For example, under federal law marijuana Is not considered a n a rc o tic drug but I t 1s under s ta te laws. w ith dangerous drugs. Each s ta te has I t s own reg u la tio n s dealing Persons dealing w ith drug abuse education should learn th e ir s ta te laws and c it y ordinances on m arijuana, narcotics and dangerous drugs.*® Summary The Michigan State Board o f Education has been assigned the primary r e s p o n s ib ility f o r providing substance-related education to Michigan youth. This re s p o n s ib ility dates back to Public Act 93, 1883, which required the p u b lic schools to teach the "e ffe c ts o f narcotics and stim ulants on the human system." The State Department o f Education has re c e n tly taken two major steps toward developing comprehensive state-w ide substance 28 abuse programs. In the f a l l o f 1972, the Department o f Education developed drug education guidelines which were adapted by the State Board o f Education. These g uid eline s which are Intended to provide lo ca l school d is t r ic t s w ith d ire c tio n and support 1n the develop­ ment o f drug education programs, were re c e n tly released to the In d iv id u a l d is t r ic t s . C u rre n tly , the Department o f Education 1s developing regional drug education tra in in g programs. These regional p ro je c ts are designed to tr a in teams o f educators, com­ munity members, and youth from lo c a l school d is t r ic t s to a s s is t students In making In te llig e n t decisions concerning the use o f drugs and 1n accepting re s p o n s ib ility fo r th e ir own health and behavior. I t 1s Im portant to recognize th a t there Is no evidence th a t any drug education program, by i t s e l f , w i ll dim inish substance 47 abuse among youth. CHAPTER I I I METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY In tro d u c tio n This section discusses the methodology used 1n conducting the study. The population and sample used are Id e n tifie d and defined, the data gathering procedure described, and the Instrument employed w ith I t s a d m in is tra tio n and s t a t is t ic a l treatm ent explained. The questionnaire employed was designed by the researcher w ith the assistance and advisement o f education research consultants and the graduate committee. The Instrum ent 1s unique to th is study; th e re fo re , no o p p o rtu n ity fo r v a lid a tio n e xiste d . S election o f the Population and Sample The population was. comprised o f p rin c ip a ls o f the elemen­ ta ry , ju n io r high and senior high schools In Michigan. The Michigan Education D ire cto ry and Buyer's Guide i was used to Id e n tify the school p rin c ip a ls , the le v e ls o f the schools, qnd the addresses o f the schools. 48 The sample was a p ro po rtion al random sample o f elementary, ju n io r high and senior high school p rin c ip a ls . selected 1n the fo llo w in g manner: The sample was 30 1. A determ ination was made o f how many schools o f each le ve l there were 1n the p u b lic school system 1n the s ta te o f M ichi­ gan. On the average, 1t was determined there were two times as many elementary schools as ju n io r high schools and tw ice as many ju n io r high schools as senior high schools. 2. I t was also a r b it r a r ily decided to choose only one school from each d i s t r i c t regardless o f lo c a tio n o r size o f the school d is t r i c t . 3. 40. The to ta l number o f senior high schools selected was The to ta l number o f ju n io r high schools was 70. The to ta l number o f elementary schools was 140. The se le c tio n method using the and Buyer's Guide o f 1973-74, fo llo w s : Michigan Education D ire cto ry se le ctio ns o f the elementary schools s ta rte d w ith d i s t r i c t number three and the f i r s t elementary school lis te d In every th ir d d i s t r i c t was selected th e re a fte r. The ju n io r high school s e le c tio n began w ith d i s t r i c t number seven and the f i r s t ju n io r high lis te d In every .th ird d i s t r i c t was selected th e re ­ a fte r . The senior high school se le ctio n began w ith d i s t r i c t number fiv e and the f i r s t senior high lis te d In every tw e lfth d i s t r i c t was selected th e re a fte r. In making sampling se le ctio ns 1n th is manner only one school was selected from each d i s t r i c t , w ith 250 school d is t r ic t s involved. Each o f the 250 p rin c ip a ls was mailed a q ue stio n n a ire , cover le t t e r and stamped re tu rn envelope. One hundred n in e ty ques­ tio n n a ire s were received fo r a 7615 re tu rn ra te . 31 The cover le t t e r requested only ten minutes o f t h e ir time 1n answering the questions. The le t t e r also assured them o f complete anonlm lty (see Appendix I ) . The questionnaire consisted o f 17 questions and a b r ie f d e s c rip tio n o f the philosophies o f three d iffe r e n t drug abuse preven­ tio n education programs. Along w ith each philosophy, s ix a d d itio n a l questions were asked w ith regard to th a t philosophy's effe ctiven ess and s im ila r it y to t h e ir c u rre n t drug programs (see Appendix I I ) . Items 1 through 7 o f the drug abuse prevention education program questionnaire gives data regarding the p rin c ip a l and his school, the ages o f h is c h ild re n , number o f years he has been a p r in c ip a l, the le ve l o f his school (elem entary, ju n io r high, senior h ig h ), the size o f the student body, whether a community o r noncommunity school, lo c a tio n o f school/ (urban, suburban, r u r a l) , and p r in c ip a l's p o lit ic a l b e lie f. Items 8 through 17 sought to determine the p rin c ip a ls ' fe e lin g s as to the degree and s e v e rity o f p e n a ltie s fo r marijuana use, drug use as a major so c ia l problem, drug use 1n the p rin c ip a ls ' own schools, s e v e rity o f the problem o f drug use In the p rin c ip a ls ' own schools, the existence o f a w ritte n p o lic y regarding drug use and abuse, to whom the w ritte n p o lic y 1s d is trib u te d , and the primary focus o f the drug abuse prevention education program 1n the rele van t school. Three types o f drug abuse prevention education program philosophies were described. Philosophy I , Factual and Legal Informa­ tio n ; Philosophy I I , B io lo g ic a l Aspects o f Drugs and E ffe c ts on the Central Nervous System and Body Functions; Philosophy I I I , Value C la r ific a tio n , and Decision-Making S k ills . The same s ix questions were asked regarding each o f the three philosophies. Itrm s 1, 2, 5, and 6 d e a lt w ith p rin c ip a ls ' o v e ra ll a ttitu d e about each program's e ffe ctive n e s s . Item 3 o f each philosophy asked about the s im ila r it y o f each program to th e ir c u rre n t program. Item 4 asked each p rin c ip a l a t which school le v e l he/she f e l t each program's philosophy would be most e ffe c tiv e 1n reducing drug abuse. Method o f Reporting Findings The Inform ation recorded on each questionnaire was tabulated on a coding form. The Inform ation from each questionnaire was then key-punched on an IBM computer card. The analysis o f re s u lts was reported 1n the form o f Chisquares and repeated measures analysis o f variance ta b le s . The Chi- squares te s t fo r Independence was used to te s t fo r a re la tio n s h ip between the v a ria b le s . Repeated measures ana lysis o f variance were used to te s t d iffe re n ce s 1n the p rin c ip a ls ' perception o f the e ffe c ­ tiveness o f drug abuse prevention education programs which are based on d iffe r e n t philosophies. Summary This chapter has o ffe re d a d e s c rip tio n o f the methodology Involved In conducting the study. 33 The population was taken from selected p u b lic schools In Michigan. The sample consisted o f p u b lic school p rin c ip a ls selected randomly from the Michigan Education D ire c to ry and Buyer*s Guide, 1973-74. The questionnaire was developed by the researcher w ith the assistance and advisement o f the guidance committee and Michigan State U n iv e rs ity College o f Education Research Consultants O ffic e . The s t a t is t ic a l procedures were designed 1n conjunction w ith the Michigan State U n iv e rs ity College o f Education Research Consultants. Chapter IV. The data 1s organized, presented and analyzed 1n CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA In tro d u c tio n The study attempted to provide answers to the fo llo w in g set o f questions: 1. Is there a re la tio n s h ip between the size o f the student body and the a ttitu d e s p rin c ip a ls have regarding drug abuse preven­ tio n education programs? 2. Is there a re la tio n s h ip between the lo c a tio n o f the school (urban, suburban, r u r a l) , and the a ttitu d e s p rin c ip a ls have regarding drug abuse prevention education programs? 3. Is there a re la tio n s h ip between the leve l o f the school (elementary, ju n io r high, senior h ig h ), and the a ttitu d e s p rin c ip a ls have regarding drug abuse prevention education programs? 4. Is there a re la tio n s h ip between the type o f school (com­ munity or noncommunity sch oo l), and the a ttitu d e s p rin c ip a ls have regarding drug abuse education programs? 5. Is there a re la tio n s h ip between the extent o f drug use 1n the school and the a ttitu d e s p rin c ip a ls have regarding drug abuse education programs? 35 6. Do p rin c ip a ls perceive d iffe re n ce s 1n the e ffe c tiv e ­ ness o f drug abuse prevention education programs which are based on d iffe r e n t philosophies? D escription o f Instruments The Instrum ent used to measure p rin c ip a ls ' a ttitu d e s and to attempt to answer the above questions was the Drug Abuse Preven­ tio n Education Program Questionnaire (see Appendix I , cover le t t e r and Appendix I I , Drug Q uestionnaire). R e lia b ilit y o f Instrument R e lia b ilit y o f the Drug Abuse Prevention Education Program Questionnaire was computed using Hoyt's Analysis o f Variance Method. The f i r s t fo u r Items fo r Philosophy I had an In te rn a l con­ sistency r e l i a b i l i t y c o e ffic ie n t o f .8592. The f i r s t fo u r Items fo r Philosophy I I had an in te rn a l con­ sistency r e l i a b i l i t y c o e ffic ie n t o f .8497. The f i r s t fo u r Items fo r Philosophy I I I had an In te rn a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y c o e ffic ie n t o f .8955. The o v e ra ll r e l i a b i l i t y o f the three philosophies over twelve Items combined was .7566. D escription o f S ta tis tic a l Computations The same s t a t is t ic a l te s ts were used fo r each o f the Questions 1 through 5. 36 Some o f the p rin c ip a ls * a ttitu d e s regarding drug programs were measured by s in g le Items which were not Intended to be combined w ith other Items. In these cases a ch1-square te s t fo r Independence was used to te s t fo r a re la tio n s h ip between the Independent va riables (questions 1-5) and the dependent v a ria b le s. Independent Variables 1. Size o f student body (le ss than 300, 400-600, 700- 1000, 1000-2000, over 2000). 2. Location o f the school (urban, suburban, r u r a l) . 3. Level o f the school (elementary, ju n io r high, senior high). 4. Type o f school (community o r noncommunity). 5. Extent o f drug use 1n the school. Dependent Variables 1. Size o f the student body. 2. Location o f school. 3. Level o f school. 4. Type o f school. 5. Number o f years a p rin c ip a l has served. 6. P o litic a l b e lie fs o f p rin c ip a ls . 7. Existence o f a w ritte n p o lic y on drug use. 8. D is trib u tio n o f w ritte n p o lic y on drug use. 9. Schools having "assembly type" drug programs. 10. Drug education u n its taught p rim a rily 1n our department. 37 11. Drug abuse programs o ffe re d as formal courses. 12. In -s e rv ic e tra in in g programs In drug abuse fo r 13. In -s e rv ic e tra in in g programs In drug abuse fo r teachers. parents. P rin cip a ls* Perceptions 14. Primary focus 15. The e xte n t o f present drug education program. to which drug abuse c o n s titu te s a major so cia l problem. 16. S everity o f p e n a ltie s fo r marijuana use. 17. Projected frequency o f drug use 1n the school. 18. Proportion o f students who re g u la rly use "hard drugs." 19. Proportion o f students who re g u la rly use " s o ft drugs." 20. Extent to which drug abuse 1s a problem 1n your school. In an attem pt to answer question 6, a repeated measures analysis o f variance was computed to determine 1 f there are s i g n i f i ­ cant d iffe re n ce s 1n the p rin c ip a ls ' perceptions o f the e ffe ctive n e ss o f drug abuse education programs which are based on d iffe r e n t philosophies. Independent va ria b le s were (1) s iz e o f the student body, (2) lo c a tio n o f the school, (3) le v e l o f the school, and (4) extent o f drug use 1n the school. Dependent va ria ble s were the combined responses to questions 1, 2, 5, and 6 o f each Philosophy I , I I , and I I I . 38 Results o f Questions Question 1 Is there a re la tio n s h ip between the size o f the student body and the a ttitu d e s p rin c ip a ls have regarding drug abuse preven­ tio n education programs? Of the 20 0h1-squares which were computed fo r th is question, none proved to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n ific a n t. The In te ra c tio n between size o f student body and drug abuse prevention education program philosophies was not s t a t is t ic a lly s ig n ific a n t when combined scores on questions 1, 2, 5, and 6 served as the dependent v a ria b le (p > .254). Question 2 Is there a re la tio n s h ip between the lo c a tio n o f the school (urban,suburban, r u r a l) , and the a ttitu d e s p rin c ip a ls have regarding drug abuse prevention education programs? Of the 20 Ch1-squares which were computed fo r th is question, two (2) proved to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n ific a n t. The In te ra c tio n between the id e a tio n o f the school and drug abuse prevention education program philosophies was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n ific a n t when combined scores on questions 1, 2, 5, and 6 served as the dependent v a ria b le (p > .779). S ig n ific a n t re la tio n s occurred between lo c a tio n o f the school and the fo llo w in g dependent va ria b le s (see Tables 4.1 and 4 .2 ). i Table 4.1. Location of school Location of school and principals' p olitical b elie f. Strongly conservative Moderately conservative Moderately liberal Strongly liberal Neither liberal or conservative Urban 7* 7% 64* 7* 14* Suburban 0 47* 32* 4* 17* Rural 5* 51* 34* 0 10* • Chi-square - 19.620; d .f. = 8; (p < .05). Table 4.2. Location of the school and perceived severity of the problem of drug abuse in the relevant school. Serious problem Moderate problem Minor problem No problem Urban 0 40* 7* .53* Suburban 6* 19* 36* 39* 1 Rural 3* 10* 42* 45* Location Of school Chi-square = 14.959; d .f. = 6; (p < .05). 40 Question 3 Is there a re la tio n s h ip between the leve l o f the school (elementary, ju n io r h igh, se nio r high) and the a ttitu d e s p rin c ip a ls have regarding drug abuse prevention education programs? Of the 20 Ch1-squares which were computed fo r th is question, seven (7) proved to be s t a t is t ic a lly s ig n ific a n t. The In te ra c tio n between the le ve l o f the school and drug abuse prevention education program philosophies was not s t a t is t ic a lly s ig n ific a n t when combined scores on questions 1, 2, 5, and 6 served as the dependent v a ria b le (p > .319). S ig n ific a n t re la tio n s occurred between the le v e l o f the school and the dependent va ria b le s seen In Tables 4 .3 , 4 .4 , 4 .5 , 4 .6 , 4 .7, 4 .8 , and 4.9. Table 4.3. Level o f school Level o f the school and projected Increase 1n drug use 1n the school. S trongly disagree S trongly agree Agree N either Elementary 2% 14% 48% 17% 19% Junior High 3% 27% 20% 38% 12% Senior High 5% 18% 49% 28% 0 Ch1-square - 24.541; d . f . = 8 ; (p < .0 5). Disagree 41 Table 4 .4 . Level o f the school and percent o f students who are re g u la r users o f "hard drugs." Less 1% 2-3* 4-6* 7-10* Over 10* Elementary 97* 3* 0 0 0 Ju nio r High 93% 5* 2* 0 0 Senior High 71* 26* 3* 0 0 Level o f school Chi-square * 19.987; d . f . - 4; (p < .05). Table 4 .5. Level o f the school and percent o f students who are re g u la r users o f " s o ft drugs." Less 10* 11-15* 16-25* 26-50* Over 50* Elementary 95* 5* 0 0 0 Junior High 84* 12* 2* 0 2* Senior High 65* 20* 9* 6* 0 Level o f school • Ch1-square 9• 27.879; d . f . * 8; (P <'$• 05). Table 4 .6 . Level o f school Level o f the school and s e v e rity o f the drug problem In the school. Serious problem Moderate problem Minor problem No problem Elementary 0 8* 21* 71* Junior High 7* 22* 51* 20* Senior High 8* 26* 54* 12* Ch1-square * 57.805; d . f . = 6; (p < .0 5 )." 42 Table 4 .7 . Level o f the school and existence o f a w ritte n p o lic y fo r drug users and abusers. W ritte n p o lic y w ith s p e c ific reference to drug use Level o f school W ritte n p o lic y w/no s p e c ific reference to drug use No w ritte n p o lic y Elementary 24% 17% 59% Ju nio r High 56% 25% 19% Senior High 64% 15% 21% Ch1-square = 34..600; d . f . « 4; (p < .0 5). Table 4.8. Level o f the school and d is tr ib u tio n o f the school p o lic y D is trib u te d to fa c u lty o nly Level o f school Elementary 12% Junior High Senior High D is trib u te d to students only D is trib u te d to both students and fa c u lty D1strtbuted to n e ith e r students or fa c u lty 2% 55% 31% 6% 0 89% 5% 0 0 94% 6% Ch1-square *■ 26. 933; d . f . - 6; (p < .05). Table 4 .9 . Level o f the school and e xtent to which drug education u n its are taught p rim a rily 1n one department. Level o f School Yes No Elementary 60% 40% Junior High 81% 19% Senior High 90% 10% Ch1-square ■ 15.000; d . f . * 2; (p < .05).* 43 Question 4 Is there a re la tio n s h ip between the type o f school (com­ munity o r noncommunity) and the a ttitu d e s p rin c ip a ls have regarding drug abuse education programs? Of the 20 Chi-squares which were computed fo r th is ques­ tio n , one (1) proved to be s t a t is t ic a lly s ig n ific a n t. The In te r ­ a ctio n between the type o f school and drug abuse prevention education program philosophies was not s t a t is t ic a lly s ig n ific a n t when combined scores on questions 1, 2, 5, and 6 served as the dependent v a ria b le (p > .635). Table 4.10. Type o f school and Incidence o f school assemblies on drug abuse. Type o f school Yes No Community School 32% 68% Noncommunity School 56% 44% Ch1-square * 3.868; d . f . ■ 1; (p < .05). Question 5 Is there a re la tio n s h ip between the e xtent o f drug use 1n the school and the a ttitu d e s p rin c ip a ls have regarding drug abuse education programs? Of the 20 Chi-squares which were computed fo r th is question, none proved to be s t a t is t ic a lly s ig n ific a n t. The 1nteratc1on between the e xtent o f drug use 1n the school and drug abuse prevention educa­ tio n program philosophies was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n ific a n t when 44 combined scores on questions 1t 2, 5, and 6 served as the dependent v a ria b le (p > .263). Question 6 Do p rin c ip a ls perceive d iffe re n ce s 1n the e ffe ctive n e ss o f drug abuse prevention education programs which are based on d iffe r e n t philosophies? In an attempt to answer question s ix , a nalysis o f variance te s ts were computed fo r each o f fiv e Independent v a ria b le s —type o f school, size o f student body, le ve l o f school, lo c a tio n o f school, and extent o f drug use 1n the school. The sum o f scores on questions 1, 2, 5, and 6 o f Philosophies I , I I , and I I I served as the dependent v a ria b le . Means and variances fo r each o f the Independent v a ria b le s are presented in Tables 4.11, 4.13, 4.15, 4.17 and 4.19. The co r­ responding a nalysis o f variance te s ts are presented In Tables 4.12, 4.14, 4.16, 4.10 and 4.20. Table 4.11. Size o f student body (4 le v e ls ). Means and Variances P h ilo . I X Less than 300 (N=24) s2 X 400 - 600 (N=90) 700 - 1000 (N=45) 1000 - 2000 ( N - ll) s2 X s2 X Grand Means) s2 X 12.92 12.77 s 13.50 8 10.65 a 12.91 s 11.94 at 13.00 a 20.40 - 13.23 a P h ilo . I I P h ilo . I l l 9.50 s2 8.95 s 10.83 X s2 a 9.37 a 10.31 X s2 * 8.53 X 12.27 s2 a 10.81 a 10.60 X = 7.17 8.05 X2 a 7.71 X s2 a 9.12 a 7.58 X s2 8 7.75 a 6.64 X s2 a 4.65 a 7.53 X X a X Grand means X = 9.86 X = 10.68 X » 10.26 X » 10.63 45 Table 4.12. Analysis o f variance ta b le . Sums o f squares Item Mean squares df 45.12 3 15.04 P rin c ip a ls w ith in group (e rro r term fo r design fa c to r o f group) 1825.25 166 11.00 Philosophies I , I I , I I I 2767.16 2 1383.58 52.44 6 8.74 3008.70 332 9.00 Size :of^ 2 ; (p < .05). * 52 Table 4.26. Philosophy I I , e ffe ctiven ess I f taught a t the senior high le v e l. Yes No (N-87) 1915 81% Junior high p rin c ip a ls (N-55) 15% 85% Senior high p rin c ip a ls (N-35) 29% 71% School le v e l Elementary p rin c ip a ls Ch1 i-square - 2.677, d. f . * 2; (p < .0 5). Table 4.27. Philosophy I I I , e ffe ctiven ess 1 f taught a t elementary le v e l. School le ve l Yes No (N-87) 69% 31% Ju nio r high p rin c ip a ls (N-55) 38% 62% Senior high p rin c ip a ls (N-35) 25% 75% Elementary p rin c ip a ls Chi-square * 24.892; d . f . 81 2; (p < .05). Table 4.28. Philosophy I I I , effectiveness 1 f taught a t the ju n io r high le v e l. School le ve l Yes No (N-87) 46% 54% Junior high p rin c ip a ls (N-55) 74% 26% Senior high p rin c ip a ls (N-35) 61% 39% Elementary p rin c ip a ls Chi-square » 11.507; d . f . - 2;- (p < ,0 5). 53 Table 4.29. Philosophy I I I , e ffe ctiven ess 1 f taught a t the se nio r high le v e l. Yes No (N-87) 44% 56% Ju n io r high p rin c ip a ls (N-55) 45% 55% Senior high p rin c ip a ls (N-35) 64% 36% School le ve l Elementary p rin c ip a ls Chi-square - 4.525; d . f . “ 2; (p < .05), The p rin c ip a ls were asked to give t h e ir perceptions regard­ ing the le ve l where they f e l t drug abuse prevention education programs based upon three d iffe r e n t philosophies would be most e ffe c tiv e . Philosophy I , primary focus on fa c tu a l and legal in fo rm a tio n . Philosophy I I , prim ary focus on b io lo g ic a l aspects o f drugs. Philosophy I I I , primary focus on value-clar1f1cat1on and dec1s1on-mak1ng s k ills . Results o f elementary p r in c ip a l^ perceptions are presented 1n Figure 4.1. Results o f ju n io r high p rin c ip a lg perceptions are presented 1n Figure 4.2. Results o f senior high p rin c ip a ls * perceptions are presented 1n Figure 4.3. Elementary p rin c ip a ls (69%) perceive Philosophy I I I as most e ffe c tiv e I f taught a t the elementary le v e l. Junior high p rin c ip a ls (74%) perceive Philosophy I I I as most e ffe c tiv e I f taught a t the ju n io r high le v e l. Senior high p rin c ip a ls (64%) perceive Philosophy I I I as most e ffe c tiv e 1 f taught a t the senior high le v e l. 54 —Philosophy I —Philosophy I I Philosophy I I I +* 40- Elementary le ve l Flgure 4.1 Junior high leve l Senior high leve l Elementary p rin c ip a ls 'p e rc e p tio n s o f the three p h ilo so ­ phies and the le ve l where they perceived them to be most e ffe c tiv e . 80 60 4J C 48 46 40 u iai a. ai Philosophy —— Philosophy £1 ementary level Figure 4.2. Junior V ilgh level hilosophy I I I Senior high le v e l Ju nio r high p rin c ip a ls 1 perceptions o f the three p h ilo so ­ phies and the le v e l where they perceived them to be e ffe c tiv e . 55 70 - - 60 ■ 50 - 45 AA 1 i o 30 - o CSI 19 < 15 Philosophy I Philosophy I I 10 ■ 0 — - p h ) 1o s ° P hy le ve l Figure 4.3, leve l 111 Senior high le ve l Senior high p rin c ip a ls ' perceptions o f the three philosophies and the le ve l where they perceived them to be e ffe c tiv e . Summary o f the Results fo r Question Six 1. In analyzing the means o f the repeated measures a n a ly s is , i t can be concluded th a t respondents were most In fa vo r o f Philosophy I I I , value-clar1f1cat1on and decision-making s k i l ls and le a s t 1n fa vo r o f Philosophy I , fa c tu a l and legal Inform ation. 2. The elementary p rin c ip a ls f e l t th a t v a lu e -c la rlflc a tlo n and decision-making s k ills would be most e ffe c tiv e 1n reducing drug abuse I f taught a t the elementary le v e l. The ju n io r high p rin c ip a ls f e l t a program w ith th is same philosophy would be most e ffe c tiv e 1f taught a t the ju n io r high le v e l. The senior high p rin c ip a ls f e l t th a t value-clar1f1cat1on and dec1s1on-mak1ng s k ills would be most e ffe c tiv e 1n reducing drug abuse 1 f taught a t the senior high le v e l. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In tro d u c tio n There seems to be agreement th a t the use o f drugs by young people 1n our country has become a c r it ic a l problem o f national concern. I t would seem d i f f i c u l t to fin d anyone o f reasonable a b i l it y who does not consider themselves knowledgeable and aware o f drugs and the drug c u ltu re th a t drugs have spawned. I t would appear even more d i f f i c u l t to fin d an In d iv id u a l who does not have an opinion as to what to do about drugs and drug abusers. I t seems th a t w ith very few exceptions the people by and large agree th a t the place to teach youngsters about drugs and drug abusers 1s 1n the schools. However, the manner 1n which th is should be accomplished does not have f u l l accord from those concerned. Results The major purpose o f th is study was to Id e n tify the a t t i ­ tudes o f p rin c ip a ls regarding drug abuse prevention education programs. The study attempted to determine the p rin c ip a ls ' percpetlons concern­ ing the school le v e l (elementary, ju n io r h igh, senior high) 1n which d iffe r e n t drug education programs having d iffe r e n t philosophies would 56 57 be most e ffe c tiv e in reducing drug abuse. The research e f f o r t . furtherm ore attempted to determine the re la tio n s h ip between drug abuse prevention programs and (1) size o f the student body, (2) lo c a tio n o f the school, (3) le ve l o f the school, (4) type o f school and (5) the e xtent o f drug use In the school. The major fin d in g s based on the a n a lysis o f the data were: 1. There was a d ir e c t and s ig n ific a n t re la tio n s h ip between the lo c a tio n o f the school and p rin c ip a ls ' p o lit ic a l b e lie fs . 2. There was a d ir e c t and s ig n ific a n t re la tio n s h ip between the lo c a tio n o f the school and the perceived s e v e rity o f the drug problem. In general, p rin c ip a ls o f urban schools f e l t drug abuse was a more serious problem than p rin c ip a ls o f ru ra l schools. 3. the There was a d ir e c t and s ig n ific a n t re la tio n s h ip between le ve l o f school and the percentage o f drug use in the school. In general ju n io r and senior high schools have a higher evidence o f drug use. 4. the There was a d ir e c t and s ig n ific a n t re la tio n s h ip between le ve l o f school and the number o f students who are re g u la r users o f drugs. The la rg e r urban high schools, g e n e ra lly , the higher the incidence o f re g u la r drug users. 5. There was a d ir e c t and s ig n ific a n t re la tio n s h ip between the le v e l o f the school and the perceived s e v e rity o f the drug problem. In general, drug abuse was thought to be more serious a problem 1n ju n io r and senior high schools than 1n elementary schools. 6. There was a d ir e c t and s ig n ific a n t re la tio n s h ip between the le ve l o f the school and whether the school has a w ritte n p o lic y 58 f o r drug users and drug abusers. In general, the la rg e ju n io r and senior high schools have the highest Incidence o f having a drug p o lic y . 7. There was a d ir e c t and s ig n ific a n t re la tio n s h ip between the le ve l o f the school and how the w ritte n p o lic y regarding drug users and abusers 1s d is tr ib u te d . In c o n tra s t to the elementary school, the ju n io r and senior high schools, g e n e ra lly , d is trib u te d the w ritte n drug p o lic y to both students and fa c u lty . 8. There was a d ir e c t and s ig n ific a n t re la tio n s h ip between the le ve l o f the school and u n its on drug education taught p rim a rily 1n one department. 9. There was a d ir e c t and s ig n ific a n t re la tio n s h ip between the type o f school and the use o f assembly-type drug abuse prevention education programs. Assembly-type drug education programs were o ffe re d more fre q u e n tly 1n noncommunity schools than community schools. 10. There was no s ig n ific a n t re la tio n s h ip between the e xtent o f drug use in the school and the 20 Chi-square te s ts compared fo r th is question. There was no evidence from the data to In d ic a te th a t extent o f drug use 1n the school had any e ffe c t on p rin c ip a ls ' per­ ceptions o f drug abuse education programs. 11. There was a s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e 1n the way p rin c ip a ls perceived the e ffe ctive n e ss o f drug abuse prevention education programs which are based on d iffe r e n t philosophies. S1xty-n1ne percent o f a ll the p rin c ip a ls th a t responded perceived Philosophy I I I , valuec la r lf lc a t lo n and decision-making s k i l l s , as being the most e ffe c tiv e 59 drug abuse education program and Philosophy I , fa c tu a l and legal Inform ation as being the le a s t e ffe c tiv e . 12. The elementary p rin c ip a ls f e l t th a t value-clar1f1cat1on and decision-making s k i l ls would be most e ffe c tiv e in reducing drug abuse 1f taught a t the elementary le v e l. The ju n io r high p rin c ip a ls f e l t a program w ith th is same philosophy would be most e ffe c tiv e 1n reducing drug abuse 1 f taught a t the ju n io r high le v e l. The senior high p rin c ip a ls f e l t th a t value-clar1f1cat1on and dedslon-m aking s k ills would be most e ffe c tiv e 1n reducing drug abuse 1f taught a t the se n io r high le v e l. These fin d in g s suggest th a t the le v e l o f the school Is the major fa c to r 1n determ ining p rin c ip a ls ' a ttitu d e s regarding drugs 1n schools and drug abuse prevention education programs. I t can be noted th a t the size o f the student body does Influence the p rin c ip a ls ' a ttitu d e s regarding drug abuse In schools and drug abuse prevention education programs. However, since e le ­ mentary schools are ty p ic a lly sm aller 1n student size than e ith e r ju n io r high schools o r senior high schools, the re s u lts are f e l t to run p a ra lle l to the re s u lts shown from the fin d in g s fo r the le ve l o f the school. I t 1s in te re s tin g to note the re s u lts o f the p rin c ip a ls ' a ttitu d e s regarding the le ve l o f the school where they f e l t the drug prevention education programs based on d iffe r e n t philosophies would be most e ffe c tiv e . S1xty-n1ne percent o f the elementary p rin c ip a ls fe e l th a t Philosophy I I I , as described In the drug abuse prevention program q ue stio n n a ire , which places prim ary focus on i value-e1arif1cat1on and declslon-making s k i l l s , would be most e ffe c ­ tiv e 1n the elementary school. Seventy-four percent o f the ju n io r high school p rin c ip a ls fe e l Philosophy I I I would be most e ffe c tiv e a t the ju n io r high school le v e l. S 1xty-four percent o f the senior high school p rin c ip a ls fe e l Philosophy I I I would be most e ffe c tiv e a t the senior high le v e l. On the average, s ix ty -n in e percent o f a ll the p rin c ip a ls fe e l th a t Philosophy I I I , which 1s based p rim a rily on valueclar1f1cat1on and decision-making s k ills would be most e ffe c tiv e a t the school le v e l a t which they were p rin c ip a l. Recommendatlons The review o f the lite r a tu r e demonstrated the wide v a rie ty o f drug abuse prevention education progrms c u rre n tly 1n use 1n the s ta te o f Michigan. Despite th is fa c t, there appears to be no consen­ sus among educators as to what 1s a good program and what 1s not. The major Issue facing educators 1s the fa c t th a t we have great numbers o f young people who are drug users and drug abusers and many more who are p o te n tia l drug users and drug abusers. Society and educators In p a r tic u la r , are faced w ith the d i f f i c u l t problem o f how best to educate the young regarding drug use. The researcher concludes th a t there must be concerted e ffo r ts on the p a rt o f schools and communities to become Involved 1n the process o f developing and Implementing e ffe c tiv e drug abuse prevention programs fo r th e ir own p a r tic u la r needs. The problems must be faced by a ll facets o f the school and community. Our nation 61 1s faced w ith a drug c r is is and something more than what has been done 1n the past must be provided I f we are to reduce the high Incidence o f drug abuse among our young. Most problems are u s u a lly problems because o f lack o f knowledge and the re lia n c e on stereotypes. Therefore, the school and communitymust, 1n a ra tio n a l manner: 1. Become aware o f the e xtent o f the drug problem 1n the school and community. 2. Provide o p p o rtu n itie s fo r tr a in in g o f school students and residents 1n drug abuse prevention education. 3. Concentrate on workable methods o f combating drug abuse and provide s o c ia lly acceptable a lte rn a tiv e s fo r drugs. 4. not Become aware th a t the major problem o f drug abuse Is drugs, but people. 5. Provide drug abuse prevention education s e q u e n tia lly 1n grades K-12. 6. We are dealing w ith a people,, problem. / Provide the necessary guidance and d ire c tio n fo r the drug abuse prevention education programs so as to prevent th e ir becoming o f l i t t l e value to the young people they are Intended to help and a s s is t. 7. Provide fo r frequent and systematic evaluation o f the drug abuse prevention education programs th a t would allow fo r change when and where necessary 1n order to keep the programs fu n c tio n in g o p tim a lly . 8. Become aware o f the need fo r good communication between the d iffe r e n t groups v i t a l l y Involved 1n the drug problems 62 and the v a s tly d if fe r in g perceptions concerning drugs held by these groups. 9. Consider meaningful and e ffe c tiv e ways the community and school can work and cooperate together th a t would promote greater consensus concerning drug abuse prevention education. And as the re s u lts o f th is study suggest— 10. Schools should I n i t i a l l y consider a drug prevention program which stresses va1ue-clar1f1cat1on and dec1s1on-mak1ng s k i l ls ra th e r than being lim ite d to the dissem ination o f fa c tu a l Inform ation or scare ta c tic s . Im p lica tio n s fo r Educators I t would appear obvious th a t there are no easy answers to a s itu a tio n as complex as the drug abuse problem. I t might be argued th a t 1 t Is not a m atter o f whether o r not we want drug abusers, 1t 1s a m atter o f fa c t th a t we have them. the c ru c ia l problem. What we do w ith them becomes The review o f the lite r a tu r e demonstrated the many d iffe r e n t types and s ty le s o f drug abuse prevention education programs. The re s u lts o f the studies reviewed Indicated th a t the programs o f the past have not been e ffe c tiv e In providing the desired re s u lts , namely, a reduction 1n drug abuse among the young o f our nation. The researcher b elieve s, 1 f there 1s to be a reduction 1n drug abuse, the lo g ic a l means o f accomplishing th is Is through educatlo n . The way to reach the most people th a t are prone to use drugs 63 1s In the schools. Educators are already on the “ scene" w ith the age group o f people where drug abuse begins. Educators, whether they lik e 1 t o r n o t, are 1n the p o si­ tio n where they can do some very p o s itiv e things th a t would be e ffe c tiv e 1n the prevention o f drug abuse. The researcher suggests: 1. Educators should become Informed regarding drug abuse 1n th e ir school and community. This can be done through In -s e rv ic e tra in in g which Is complete, thorough and on-go1ng. Studies In d ic a te th a t In -s e rv ic e tra in in g 1s very Inadequate 1n our educational system when 1 t comes to the drug abuse problem and th a t u s u a lly the students know more about drugs and drug abuse than the teachers (Sakomoto, 1971). 2. Educators should become Involved In school and community a ctio n programs designed to assess the drug abuse problem In the area o f th e ir school. 3. Educators and community members should work together developing a program to help the drug abuser 1n the lig h t o f the assessed needs o f th e ir p a rtic u la r community. For a program on drug abuse to be e ffe c tiv e , students must be Included 1n the development o f the program (S trid e , 1972; Darte, 1972). 4. Some may argue th a t drug abuse programs should be u n i­ form fo r each school d i s t r i c t . The researcher believes th a t p o lic ie s regarding drug abuse and many other fa c to rs o f drug abuse prevention should be uniform fo r the e n tire school d i s t r i c t but each In d iv id u a l school 1n the d i s t r i c t has abuse problems th a t are unique to th a t 64 p a r tic u la r school. I t Is suggested th a t such things as e thn ic make up o f a school, socio-economic s ta tu s , c u ltu ra l le ve l are a ll things th a t a ffe c t the problems o f drug abuse In a given community and cannot be d e a lt w ith e ffe c tiv e ly on a uniform basis. 5. Drug abuse problems occur In a ll areas o f our s ta te (urban, suburban, and r u r a l) and 1n the schools. The p rin c ip a l is the leader 1n each school and the la lso n between the school com­ munity and the educators 1n the school. The p rin c ip a l Is the lo g ic a l person to be able to meet w ith a ll segments o f the community, the parents, students, teachers, service groups and other Interested groups to assess needs, develop o b je c tiv e s , develop curriculum and e ffe c tiv e ly a s s is t Implementation. The p r in c ip le , th e re fo re , should be the leader 1n promoting, developing, delsgnlng and Implementing a drug abuse prevention education program w ith in h is school!! 6. I t has been stated ("V1ct1mless Crime Study," Michigan, 1973) th a t no education program by I t s e l f has been e ffe c tiv e In pre­ venting drug abuse. problem. Drug abuse Is not a drug problem but a people The researcher believes th a t the most e ffe c tiv e drug abuse prevention education program w ill focus on helping drug abusers resolve th e ir Immediate human problems. Thus, educators must deal w ith drug abusers on a concerned human le v e l. FOOTNOTES Michigan Department o f Education, A Teacher Resource Guide fo r Drug Use and Abuse f o r Michigan Schools, Lansing, Michigan, 1970, p. 24. 2K1wan1s In te rn a tio n a l, Deciding About Drugs. Chicago, I l l i n o i s , 1969, p. 1. 3S ta ff Reporter, "The Drug Scene: High Schools are Higher Now," Newsweek, Vol. LXXV, No. 7 (February 16, 1970), p. 67. 4Frank M. Ochberg, "Drug Problems and the High School P r in c ip a l," The B u lle tin o f the National A ssociation o f Secondary School P rin c ip a ls . V cl. 54, No. 346 (May, 19?0), p. 55. 5Phyl11s C. B a rrln s , "Drug Abuse: New Problem fo r Boards," The Amerltan School Board Jo u rn a l, V ol. 157, No. 4 ( October, 1969), p. 15. 6Seym6ur H a lle c k ,. "The Great Drug Education Hoax," The Progressive, The Progressive Incorporated, Madison, Wisconsin, VoTT 34',' No. 7 (1970), p. 30. ^Samuel Irw in , "Drugs o f Abuse, An In tro d u c tio n to th e ir Actions and P o te n tia l Hazards," Journal o f Psychedelic Drugs (1970), p. 5. 8Ib1d. 9Ib1d. l0 M1chigan Department o f Education, op. c 1 t . . p. 16. 1 ]0.S. Government, A Federal Source Book: Answers to the Most Frequently Asked Questions about Druqs, U.S. Government P rin tTrig' 'Office,. Washington, D.C. (1371), p.. 1? l2 Ib1d. ^M ichigan Department o f Education, op. c l t , , ip». 51. 14Act No. 258 o f the Public Acts o f 1972, Section R 388.281 (paraphrased) o f the Michigan Compiled Laws. 65 66 15Ibid., Section R 388.281. ^W e b ste r's T hird New In te rn a tio n a l D ic tio n a ry . G & C Merrlcam Co., S p rin g fie ld , Massachusetts (1$6!/), p. l 4 l , Def. 4a. ^7M1ch1gan Department o f Education, op. c 1 t. , p. 16. l8 Nat1onal Association o f Blue Shield Plans, Drug Abuse: The Chemical Cop-out. Chicago A l r l ie Productions (1970), pp. 28-29. 19M1ch1gan Department o f Education, op. c 1 t . , pp. 23-28. 2®World Health O rganization, B u lle tin (1965), Vol. 32, pp. 721-733. (Boston: 2 lHarr1son Pope, J r . , Voices from the Drug C ulture Beacon Press, 1971), p. 7. ^A nthony Lukas, "The Drug Scene: 1n Social P r o file : U.S.A. Today (New York: Co., T97'0), p. 386.--------------------- Dependence Grows," Van Nostrand Relnhold 23John F ln la to r , The Drug Scene: The Scope o f the Problem Faced by the Schools (Washington, B.C.: U.S. Department o f Ju stlce T TC71)7 -------------- 24M1ch1gan Department o f Education, Drug Education Guide­ lin e s (Lansing, M ichigan, 1973), p. 12. 23Seymour H alleek, op. c 1 t. . p. 31. 2®Patr1cia M. Wold and Annette Abrams* "Drug Education," TheFord Foundation (New York: Praeger P ublishers, 1972), p. 131. 27John D. Swisher and James L. Crawford, J r . , "An Evalua­ tio n o f a Short-Term Drug Education Program," The School Counselor (March, 1971), p. 272. 2®Cal1forn1a State Department o f Education, "A Study o f More E ffe c tiv e Education R e la tive to N arco tics, Other Harmful Drugs, and H allucinogenic Substances," (a progress re p o rt submitted to the C a lifo rn ia Leglslature-as required by Chapter 1437, Statutes o f 1968), Sacramento, C a lifo rn ia , (I97CJ, PP. 16-27. 29C1ty o f Saginaw, School D is t r ic t , (K -12), Drug Use and Abuse Curriculum Guide. Saginaw,Michigan (1972), p. 3. 3®R1chard S tu a rt, "A Factual Accounting o f Drug E ffe cts Using Lectures, Discussions and Aud1o-V1sual M a te ria ls , fo r Ten Weeks," Ann Arbor News (U n iv e rs ity o f Michigan Study, Ann Arbor, M1ch1ganTTIovrT972T7”p* 1* 67 31 Richard H. DeLone, "The Ups and Downs o f Drug Abuse e du catio n ," Saturday Review. V ol. LV, No. 46 (November 11, 1972), pp. 27-32. 32B111 Stevens, STRIDE Workshop Manual. Lansing, Michigan. 33DARTE, Drug Education Resource Guide (June, 1971), revised e d itio n . 34DARTE, Program Designs, feedback sheets, other tra in in g m aterials (1970-72). 33DARTE, Announcement o f Drug Abuse Education Demonstra­ tio n M ate ria ls K1t (no d a te ). 36John VI. P o rte r, "A Proposed Model fo r T ra in in g School S ta ff Personnel 1n the Area o f Drug Education," Memorandum: To Members o f the State Board o f Education (March 25, 1972). 37State o f Michigan O ffic e o f Drug Abuse, A Handbook fo r Community-Based Drug Abuse Action Programs (no d ate ). 3®M1ch1gan Department o f Education, Drug Education Guide­ lin e s (Lansing, Michigan, 1973), p. 12. ^M ich ig a n Department o f Education, A Teacher Resource Guide fo r Drug Use and Abuse f o r Michigan Schools, op. c i t . , pp. 1-2. 4®Frank M. Ochberg, op. c 1 t., pp. 52-57. 41 Helen H. Nowlls, Drugs on the College Campus (Garden C ity , New York: Anchor Books, 1§69). 42Fred V. Hein, "Health Education and Drug Abuse," American School Health A sso ciatio n , Kent, Ohio (1971), pp. 101-105. 43Tom Steed, "T rib u te to U.S. Bureau o f N a rc o tic s ," Congres­ sional Record, 90th Congress, 1st session (February, 1967). 44M1ch1gan Department o f Education, A Teacher Resource Guide fo r Drug Use and Abuse f o r Michigan Schools, op. c U .« pp.~ 44-45. 45Ib1d. . p. 41. 4®Helen H. Nowlls, Drugs on the College Campus (New York: Doubleday Company, In c ., 1969), p. 33. 470ff1 ce o f Drug Abuse on Alcoholism , "V lctlm le ss Crime Study," Advisory Task Force Report (Lansing, Michigan, December, 1973), pp. 115-116. J Q Michigan Education D irectory.and Buyer's Guide (1973, 74), 701 Davenport B u ild in g , Lansing .Michigan, pp. 121-220. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Act No. 258 o f Public Acts o f 1972, Section R 388.281 o f the Michigan Compiled Laws. B a rrln s, P h y llis C. "Drug Abuse: New Problem fo r Boards." The American School Board Journal, 157:4 (October, im r r r r . ------------------------------------------------- C a lifo rn ia State Department o f Education. "A Study o f More E ffe c tiv e Education R elative to N arcotics, Other Harm­ fu l Drugs, and H allucinogenic Substances." (A progress re p o rt submitted to the C a lifo rn ia L e g isla tu re as required by Chapter 1437, Statutes o f 1968). Sacramento, C a lifo rn ia , 1970, pp. 16-27. DARTE. Announcement o f Drug Abuse Education Demonstration M ate ria ls k i t (no d ate ). DARTE. Drug Education Resource Guide. Revised E d itio n , June, 1971. DARTE. Program Designs, feedback sheets, other tra in in g m a te ria ls , 1970-72. DeLone, Richard H. "The Ups and Downs o f Drug Abuse Education." Saturday Review. LV:46 (November, 1972), 27-32. F ln la to r, John. The Drug Scene: The Scope o f the Problem Faced by the Schools. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department o f J u s tic e , T57T! H alleek, Seymour. "The Great Drug Education Hoax." The Progressive. Madison, Wisconsin: The Progressive Incorporated,3 4 :7 (1970), 30-31. Hein, Fred V. "Health Education and Drug Abuse." American School Health A ssociation, Kent, Ohio, 1971, 101-105. Irw in , Samuel. "Drugs o f Abuse, An In tro d u c tio n to T heir Actions and P o te ntia l Hazards." Journal o f Psychedelic Drugs, 1970, 5-15. K1wan1s In te rn a tio n a l. 1969. Deciding About Drugs. 68 Chicago, I l l i n o i s , 69 LeTarte, Clyde E ., and Mlnzey, Jack D. Community Education: From Program to Process. Midland* M ic h ig a n :P e n d e ll P ublish­ ing Company, 1 9 ^ . Lukas, Anthony. "The Drug Scene: Dependence Grows." Social P r o f ile : U.S.A. Today. New York: Van Nostrand Relnhold Co., 1970. Michigan Department o f Education. A Teacher Resource Guide fo r Drug Use and Abuse fo r Michigan Schools. Lansing, Michigan, m ------------------------ — Michigan Department o f Education. sin g , Michigan, 1973. ------------------------ Drug Education G uidelines. Lan­ Michigan, State o f: O ffic e o f Drug Abuse. A Handbook fo r CommunityBased Drug Abuse A ction Programs, (no date) Michigan Education D ire c to ry and Buyer's Guide (1973-74), 701 bavenport B u ild in g , Lansing, Michigan. National A ssociation o f Blue Shield Plans. Drug Abuse: Cop-Out. Chicago: A1rl1e Productions, 1970. Nowlls, Helen H. York: Drugs on the College Campus. Anchor books, 1969. The Chemical Garden C ity , New Ochberg, Frank M. "Drug Problems and the High School P r in c ip a l." The B u lle tin o f the National Association o f Secondary School P r m p a T s ,'"B4s34g (May. 1976). 52^57: O ffic e o f Drug Abuse on Alcoholism . "V lctlm less Crime Study." Advisory Task Force Report. Lansing, Michigan, December, 1573, 1 1 5 -1 T 6 .------------- ------- Pope, H arrison, J r . Voices from the Drug C u ltu re . Press, 1971. Boston: Beacon P o rte r, John W. "A Proposed Model fo r T ra inin g School S ta ff Per­ sonnel 1n the Area o f Drug Education." Memorandum: To members o f the State Board o f Education, Harch 25, 1972. Saginaw, C ity o f: School D is t r ic t , (K-12). Drug Use and Abuse Curriculum Guide. Saginaw, Michigan, 1972. S ta ff Reporter. "The Drug Scene: High Schools are Higher Now." Newsweek. LXXV:7 (February, 1970), 67. Steed, Tom. "T rib u te to U.S. Bureau o f N a rc o tic s ." Congressional Record. 90th Congress, 1st session (February, 1967). Stevens, B i l l . STRIDE Workshop Manual. Lansing, Michigan. 70 S tu a rt, Richard. "A Factual Accounting o f Drug E ffe cts Using Lectures, Discussions and Audio-Visual M a te ria ls , fo r Ten Weeks." Ann Arbor News. Ann A rbor, Michigan: U n iv e rs ity o f Michigan Study, November, 1972. Swisher, John D ., and Crawford, James L ., J r . "An Evaluation o f a Short-Term Drug Education Program." The School Counselor, (March, 1971), 272. U.S. Government. A Federal Source Book: Answers to the Most Frequently Asked Questions about Drugs. Washington*' D.C.: U.S. Government P rin tin g O ffic e , 1971. Webster's T hird New In te rn a tio n a l D ic tio n a ry . S p rin g fie ld , Massachusetts: 6 & C Merrtcam Co., 1$67. Wold, P a tric ia M., and Abrams, Annette. "Drug Education." The Ford Foundation. New York: Praeger P ublishers, 1377. World Health Organization B u lle tin . Vol. 32 (1965), 721-733. APPENDICES APPENDIX I MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing, Michigan 48823 Mott In s titu te f o r Community Improvement College o f Education 517 Erickson Hall December 4, 1973 I am a doctoral candidate a t Michigan State U n iv e rs ity . I am engaged In making a study o f p rin c ip a ls ' a ttitu d e s regarding drug abuse education programs used 1n selected p u b lic schools. The purpose o f th is study 1s to evaluate the types o f programs 1n various schools 1n Michigan. I would appreciate your taking the ten minutes I t w i ll take to complete th is questionnaire. To obta in the necessary In fo rm atio n , a questionnaire has been devised to gain knowledge regarding p rin c ip a ls ' a ttitu d e s towards three d iffe r e n t drug abuse programs. The names o f the schools selected are Irre le v a n t to the study, fo r th is reason there Is no need fo r any type o f Id e n tific a tio n o f your school. Honest and accurate Inform ation Is d esired. The re tu rn w ill be anonymous so th a t you may fe e l fre e r to express your fe e lin g s and opinions. I would appreciate as complete a re tu rn as p ossib le , since your to ta l coverage o f th is questionnaire Is needed to make the sur­ vey v a lid . I would be most happy to send you a copy o f the fin is h e d p ro je c t o r a s s is t you 1n o bta inin g p e rtin e n t Inform ation regarding drug abuse programs. Since the questionnaire 1s anonymous, please drop me a post card I f you d e sire the above Inform ation. Enclosed 1s a self-addressed envelope fo r your convenience 1n re tu rn in g the q ue stionnaire. Your Immediate a tte n tio n w ill be most appreciated. S in ce re ly, James 0. Branson APPENDIX I I DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION EDUCATION PROGRAM QUESTIONNAIRE Please provide requested inform ation as 1 t app lie s to you. 1. Ages o f your ch11dren 1 - 5 6-10 11 - 15 16 - 20 over 20 2. Number o f years as P rin c ip a l ( ) ( ( ( ) 11-15 j 16-20 ) over 20 ( ) 3. Level o f school ( ( ( 4. Community School Noncommunity School What 1s the size o f your student body? ( 6. ) Elementary ) Ju n io r High ) High School School C la s s ific a tio n ( ) ( ) 5. 1 -5 6-10 Less than 300 400 - 600 700 - 1000 1000 - 2000 ) over 2000 Would you c la s s ify your school, ( ( ( ) Urban ) Suburban ) Rural 72 73 7. Would you c la s s ify your p o lit ic a l b e lie f, S trongly conservative Moderately conservative Moderately lib e r a l S trongly lib e ra l N either lib e r a l o r conservative 8. Do you fe e l th a t drug abuse Is a major so cia l problem? S trongly agree Agree N either Disagree S trongly disagree 9. A user o f marijuana may be penalized f o r up to 5 years 1n j a i l 1n Michigan. Should these p e n a ltie s be: ) ( ) 10. Increased Increased Decreased Decreased considerably s lig h t ly s lig h t ly considerably Do you fe e l th a t drug use among young people 1s Increasing 1n your school? S trongly agree Agree N either Disagree S trongly disagree 11. What percent o f students are re g u la r users o f "hard drugs" 1n your school? Less than 1% 2% - 3% 4% - 6% 7% - 10% over 10% 12. What percent o f students are re g u la r users o f " s o ft drugs" 1n your school? ) Less than 10% 11% - 15% 16% - 25% 26% - 50% over 50% 74 13. Compared to o th e r student problems, how serious 1s the problem o f tfrug abuse 1n your school? ( ( ( ( 14. ) ) ) ) Does your school have a w ritte n p o lic y fo r drug users and abusers? ( ) ( ) ( ) 15. ) ) ) ) d is trib u te d d is trib u te d d is trib u te d d is trib u te d to fa c u lty only to students only to both students and fa c u lty to n e ith e r students o r fa c u lty Which o f the fo llo w in g 1s Included 1n the drug abuse prevention education program 1n your school? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( j ( ) 17. W ritten p o lic y w ith s p e c ific reference to drug use. W ritten p o lic y w ith no s p e c ific reference to drug use. No w ritte n p o lic y . Is the school p o lic y ( ( ( ( 16. Serious problem Moderate problem Minor problem No problem Assembly type program(s) U nits taught p rim a rily 1n one department (phys. e d .( science, d riv e rs ed.) Formal courses o r seminars 1n drugs Inservice fo r teachers Inservice fo r parents Which o f the fo llo w in g 1s the prim ary focus o f your drug abuse prevention program? ( ) ( j ( ) Emphasis on b io lo g ic a l aspects o f drug use. Emphasis on legal and c r im in a lity o f drug use. Emphasis on values and decision making regarding drugs. PHILOSOPHIES OF DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION EDUCATION PROGRAM In s tru c tio n s : Following are examples o f three drug abuse education philosophies, each emphasizing a d iffe r e n t phase o f the curriculum . Please read a ll three f i r s t , then com­ p le te the q uestionnaire. The same s ix questions are asked a fte r each example. Philosophy I A well-rounded drug education program shouTd consider per­ sonal values, legal fa c ts and b io lo g ic a l In fo rm atio n . However, the primary focus o f such a program should be w ith fa c tu a l and legal Inform ation regarding drug use and abuse. We should provide students w ith the knowledge and fa c ts as they p e rta in to fe d e ra l, s ta te and local laws and p e n a ltie s f o r co nvictio ns fo r Ille g a l drug Involvement. Philosophy I I A well-rounded drug education program should consider per­ sonal values, legal fa c ts and b io lo g ic a l in fo rm a tio n . However, the primary focus o f such a program should be on the b io lo g ic a l aspects o f drugs, the e ffe c ts on the ce n tra l nervous syster. and body fu n c tio n s . We should provide students w ith knowledge about the p o te n tia lly harm­ fu l e ffe c ts o f drug use on general body fu n c tio n s . Philosophy I I I A well-rounded drug education rrogram should consider per­ sonal values, legal fa c ts and b io lo g ic a l In fo rm atio n . However, the primary focus o f such a program should be on v a lu e - c la r lf1c a tio n 75 76 and decision-making s k i l l s . We should encourage students to believe enough In themselves so they can deal w ith peer group pressures, boredom, fr u s tr a tio n , and c u r io s ity 1n c o n s tru c tiv e ways. Philosophy I A well-rounded drug education program should consider per­ sonal values, legal fa c ts and b io lo g ic a l In fo rm a tio n . However, the primary focus o f such a program should be w ith fa c tu a l and legal Inform ation regarding drug use and abuse. * We shoul" provide students w ith the knowledge and fa c ts as they p e rta in to fe d e ra l, State and lo ca l laws and p en altie s fo r co nvictio ns fo r I lle g a l drug Involvement. QUESTIONS 1. The above philosophy would be most e ffe c tiv e 1n reducing the use and abuse o f "hard drugs" 1n your school. S trongly agree Agree N either D1sagree S trongly disagree 2. The above philosophy would be most e ffe c tiv e 1n reducing the use and abuse o f " s o ft drugs" In your school. ( ) ( ) 3. S trongly agree Agree N either Disagree S trongly disagree Is th is philosophy s im ila r to your present Drug Abuse Prevention Education Philosophy? Very s im ila r S im ila r D is s im ila r Very d is s im ila r 4. Where do you fe e l the above program would be most e ffe c tiv e ? ( ) II Elementary Ju nio r High High School i 77 5. Do you fe e l the above philosophy would be e ffe c tiv e 1n discourag­ ing fu tu re drug use and abuse 1n your school? S trongly agree Agree N either Disagree S trongly disagree 6. Do you fe e l th is philosophy should be an In te g ra l p a rt o f drug abuse prevention program? 11 S trongly agree Agree N either D1 sagree S trongly disagree Philosophy I I A well-rounded drug education program should consider per­ sonal values, legal fa c ts and b io lo g ic a l In fo rm a tio n . However, the primary focus o f such a program should be on the b io lo g ic a l aspects o f drugs, the e ffe c ts on the c e n tra l nervous system ana body func­ tio n s . Me should provide students w ith knowledge about the p o te n tia lly harmful e ffe c ts o f drug use on general body fu n c tio n s . QUESTIONS 1. The above philosophy would be most e ffe c tiv e 1n reducing the use and abuse o f “ hard drugs" 1n your school. S trongly agree Agree N either Disagree S trongly disagree 2. The above philosophy would be most e ffe c tiv e 1n reducing the use and abuse o f " s o ft drugs" 1n your school. S trongly agree Agree N either D1sagree S trongly disagree 78 3. Is th is philosophy s im ila r to your present Drug Abuse Prevention Education Philosophy? Very s im ila r S im ila r D is s im ila r Very d is s im ila r 4. Where do you fe e l the above program would be most e ffe c tiv e ? ( ) ( ) ( ) 5, Do you fe e l the above philosophy would be e ffe c tiv e 1n discouraging fu tu re drug use and abuse 1n your school? ( ) 6. Elementary Ju n io r High High School S trongly agree Agree N elther Disagree S trongly disagree Do you fe e l th is philosophy should be an In te g ra l p a rt o f drug abuse prevention program? S trongly agree Agree N either Disagree S trongly disagree Philosophy I I I A well-rounded drug education program should consider per­ sonal values, leg a l fa c ts and b io lo g ic a l In fo rm a tio n . However, the primary focus o f such a program should be on v a lu e - c la r iflc a tio n and decision-making s k i l l s . We should encourage students to believe enough in themselves so they can deal w ith peer group pressures, bore­ dom, fr u s tr a tio n , and c u r io s ity 1n c o n s tru c tiv e ways. 79 QUESTIONS 1. The above philosophy would be most e ffe c tiv e 1n reducing the use and abuse o f "hard drugs" 1n your school. f ( ( f ( 2. ) Strongly agree ) Agree ) N either ) Disagree ) S trongly disagree Is th is philosophy s im ila r to your present Drug Abuse Prevention Education Philosophy? ( ( ( ( 4. ) ) ) ) Elementary Junior High High School Do you fe e l the above philosophy would be e ffe c tiv e *1 n discourag­ ing fu tu re drug use and abuse 1n your school? ( ( ( ( ( 6. Very s im ila r S im ila r D is s im ila r Very d is s im ila r Where do you fe e l the above program would be most e ffe c tiv e ? ( ) ( ) ( ) 5. S trongly agree Agree N either D1sagree Strongly disagree The above philosophy would be most e ffe c tiv e 1n reducing the use and abuse o f " s o ft drugs" 1n your school. j ( ( ( ( 3. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 ) ) S trongly agree Agree Nei th e r Disagree Strongly disagree Do you fe e l th is philosophy should be an In te g ra l part o f drug abuse prevention program? ( ( ( t ( ) ) j ) ) S trongly agree Agree N either Disagree Strongly disagree