|
Right here, right now, an auspicious opportunity for positive change in drug education exists. There
are two reasons for cautious optimism. First, the kinds
of critical discussion needed in such a flawed field are
reemerging. Second, we may possibly be moving from
the problematic "abstinence" or
"no use" approach to one
that focuses on youth
development-- a resilience
(re)action.
The re-emergence of a drug education discussion
For the first time in over 15
years, the scope of drug education discourse is enlarging.
Discussions about the challenges
of drug education are taking place
in both the popular culture and
the scientific community. Within
popular culture, discussion primarily concerns Drug Abuse Resis-
tance Education (DARE). For many,
it is now a given that DARE not only
fails to prevent kids from using drugs
but may actually increase such use
(Wysong et al. 1994). The potentially
negative "boomerang effects" of the
DARE program have been exposed by
many researchers (Brown & D'Emidio-Caston 1995; Brown et al. 1997;
Rosenbaum & Hanson 1998). Questions
have been raised related to DARE's
dominance of the educational market, its profit motives,
apparent programmatic reinvention, and the potential
(yet ancillary) benefits of having an officer on the school
site during these insecure times. Deft public relations have
so far allowed DARE to continue despite these debates.
Nevertheless, the fact that these issues are now being
raised in the public domain says something important:
based on serious evidence, a frank if not skeptical public
discussion about DARE has been initiated. In addition to
the DARE debate, we are now on the cusp of another type
of discussion, one not yet so well known. It centers on the
fact that the issues of "zero tolerance" drug education are
much larger and more significant than the single program
DARE. This is something that seemed impossible only a
few years ago--a candid discussion addressing the
following issues:
- Irregular drug education research analyses/reporting
- Overstatement of findings
- Outright misrepresentation of findings (Brown 2001b; Gorman 1998, February & March 2003)
In addition to our publications (Brown 2001b; Brown &
Kreft 1998), these issues have
emerged in materials published
by esteemed institutions. For
example, the National Academy of Science describes an
availability bias--relating to
how easy it is to estimate the
frequency of an event by how
quickly it comes to mind--as
follows:
"Studies showing
limited effectiveness often
are difficult to publish and
may remain unpublished
technical reports available
only in the original
investigators' office"
(Manski et al. 2001). The
Academy finds that this
research occurs in a field
that "tended to overstate
the effectiveness of
prevention activities"
(ibid, p. 213). They
then specifically place
the experience of young
people in these "abstinence" drug education programs into
the forefront:
Brown and Kreft (1998) argue that the "no use" messages
typically conveyed in universal prevention programs
actually increase use among those most at risk for using.
These youths are more knowledgeable about drugs and
their effects than prevention curricula assume, and the
naïve messages conveyed in the programs serve to create
cognitive dissonance in the minds of these youths
(Manski, Pepper and Petrie, 2001, p. 218).
Colleagues are more brazenly coming forward to
critically discuss the under-reported evidence to which
the Academy refers. Precisely such discourse occurred at
the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Society for Prevention
Research. Professor Dennis Gorman from Texas A & M
University was discussing Project Atlas, selected by the
U.S. Department of Education to be an exemplary drug
education program. As Gorman was contrasting the
program's status with his finding that only one out of
twenty published results were significant, the program
developer entered the conference room. Gorman describes
his experience: "Who was I, he demanded--'from Bryan,
Texas'--to question the wisdom of those experts who
considered his program exemplary (Gorman, February &
March 2003)?" In short, the scientific community and the
public are becoming increasingly aware of uncomfortable
evidence from various unrelated sources
regarding our highly irregular drug educa-
tion science and its large scale program-
matic failures.
Prelude to a change?
The regular occurrence of such personal
attacks in this field points to more than a
growing discourse and knowledge base: it
indicates impending change. According to
Thomas Kuhn (Kuhn 1962), such incidences indicate attempts to incorporate
novel evidence into the currently failing
drug education paradigm. In this Kuhnian
sense, the growing discussion of the various
failures of the current drug education
paradigm serves as "the prelude to new
[paradigms]" (ibid, p. 68). For a full
description of this process, see Brown
2001a. Perhaps as a result of this emerging
discourse, drug education is in a state of
flux and may appear to be shifting between
the "no-use" programs of the past 100 years
(Beck 1998) on one end and programs
promoting youthful drug use on the other
end. Many in the community see the "harm
reduction" approach as one alternative to
these two extremes. However, while harm
reduction is necessary, it is insufficient.
This is because harm reduction is oriented
toward reducing risk, which is far different
from developing an environment that is
supportive of youth. There is a greater
opportunity here than mere harm reduction. We can
move beyond the inherent limits of a problem
remediation focus (i.e. drug use, abuse, and misuse
prevention) and into a focus on youth development.
In our response to these considerations, I and my
colleagues at the Center for Educational Research and
Development (CERD) have worked for over a decade on
more than the rhetorical level. Drawing largely from
sources outside of drug education (e.g. education, brain
science, human development), we have developed a
research-based alternative which we call "Resilience Drug
Education." Resilience Drug Education neither advocates
use, nor fails to recognize the realities of youthful drug-taking decisions. In so doing, Resilience Drug Education
moves beyond stiff rhetoric and applies sound principles
of human development.
Resilience drug education
The resilience education process is fully described in
the book Resilience Education by Brown, D'Emidio-Caston
and Benard (Corwin Press/Sage Publication 2000).
Resilience research from pioneers outside of drug education has serious implications for drug education. Long-
term studies suggest that even under the worst circumstances (e.g. poverty, abuse, or neglect),
young people will predictably grow into
thriving adults when the following three
"protective factors" are present:
- Connectedness.
- Opportunities for participation and
contribution.
- High self expectations (Benard 1987;
Garmezy 1983, 1987, 1991; Resnick et al.
1997; Rutter 1981, 1985, 1987; Werner
1986, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1993; Werner
et al. 1971; Werner & Smith 1977, 1982,
1992, 2001).
Evidence suggests that under even the most
challenging of circumstances nearly 80% of
young people thrive by mid-life when these
protective factors are present. In applying
the resilience process to drug education, it is
clear that the most important part of drug
education is the education, and that the most
significant opportunity for positive change
lies within the process itself. Facilitators at
CERD implement specific approaches to
locate and support the above protective
factors with respect to drugs and their
inherent issues (Brown 2001b) using
Confluent Education skills-building
practices (Brown 1972, 1975; Brown 1996;
see the Winter 1996/1997 issue of the
MAPS Bulletin for more on the basics of
Confluent Education). Their approach includes:
- Learning how to strategically shuttle between
individual experience, dyads, triads, small groups,
and large groups.
- Providing context-specific drug information regarding
substances--abstention, use, misuse, and abuse--
offered during the "teachable moment."
The above strategies make opportunities for developing the protective factors visible to the educator and
model them for youth. Also, without condoning drug use,
While harm
reduction
is necessary,
it is
insufficient.
...There is
a greater
opportunity here
than mere
harm reduction...
Resilience Drug Education blends this youth-supporting
process with honest, accurate and complete information,
delivered not on script, but during the teachable moment.
Through a caring, connected relationship, the teachable
moment emerges when a young person's interest or
strength is identified as a learning opportunity.
As emotional ties of connectedness between youth
and adult occur, information provided during the teach-
able moment is more likely to be accepted and become
deeply learned not because of the information per se, but
because of its context, the caring process. By
conducting exercises to help youth build
interpersonal skills within this context,
educators, counselors, administrators, or
social workers implementing the Resilience
model do more than merely provide drug
education for these young people. Participants also acquire a process that can help
them learn, make decisions in general, and
thrive over the course of their lives. It is this
process that makes Resilience Drug Education so powerful.
While Resilience
Drug Education
is presented
in a context of
"drug issues,"
its method
is independent
of that context.
Resilience Drug Education represents
more than just another unsupported
program shift. As research emerges, sup-
porting evidence regarding resilience and
drugs indicates that the results from this
approach are long term and predictive.
When researcher/practitioners focused on
the larger dimension--creating a resilient
school--young people's drug use was
significantly reduced (Battistich & Hom
1997; Battistich et al. 1991; Battistich et al.
2000). Long term results found in these
studies also include positive effects on
young people's school-related attitudes and
motives (e.g., how much they liked school,
their levels of achievement and motivation), social attitudes, skills, and values (e.g., concern for
others, conflict resolution abilities, commitment to
democratic values), higher test scores, higher grades in
core academic subjects, more involvement in positive
school and community activities and less misconduct at
school than comparison students. These results support
the salience, predictability, application, and development
of resilience in educational systems.
Why are these findings so very important? Resilience
Drug Education was born from a perspective of human
development. Now, for the first time in many years, a drug
A focus on
resilience builds
adult credibility
and allows youth
to positively connect
with adults,
further supporting
their own
lifelong
development.
education program fits in with what we know about how
to construct an effective learning environment.
Resilience Drug Education enhances the overall
educational landscape. This is best described by comparison. With DARE, Life Skills Training, and other similar
programs, effective educational practices are sacrificed at
the expense of expensive canned curricula. In otherwise
effective schools, such programs expose the serious divide
between effective educational practices and the drug
educational practices that were often developed by people
with little or no practice, knowledge, or experience in
education. Young people subsequently feel disconnected
from school and adults, and the adults feel disconnected
from the young people and their school. While many
begrudgingly implement these programs, they suffer from
knowing about effective education and simultaneously
knowing that these programs are not it (Brown &
D'Emidio-Caston 1995). Resilience Drug Education
requires little in the way of expensive
materials. In bringing the following prin-
ciples to life, Resilience Drug Education fits
into and builds on what we know about
effective education in general:
- Use strategies that engage the student's
intrinsic motivations.
- Allow young people to safely experiment
with making decisions.
- Help create life goals or "dreams" that the
learner endorses.
- Create a healthy democratic educational
community.
- Encourage the exploration of emotions
related to the adversity young people face
(Brown et al. 2000, p. 28).
While Resilience Drug Education is
presented in a context of "drug issues," its
method is independent of that context. This
means that although it deals specifically
with drug issues, anybody can capitalize on
its personal growth process component.
Resilience Drug Education is flexible. It does
not depend on staid curriculum, but rather
focuses on mobilizing the three protective
factors that are known to be effective. It does this through
interaction with the facilitator, whose professional
discretion is trusted. Resilience Drug Education not only
addresses the drug decisions of young people, but it is also
oriented toward what we refer to as the "health of the
helper" (Brown et al. 2000). By supporting the professional discretion of facilitators, Resilience Drug Education
is more likely to be implemented and also more likely to
have an impact that is mutually supportive of facilitator
and student.
CERD has worked with concerned parents, educators,
administrators, counselors, juvenile justice workers, and
the medical community. Resilience Drug Education can be
used with any age group above the fourth grade, in formal
or informal educational settings. Support for this program
has been garnered from the Graduate School of Education
at the University of California at Berkeley, the University
of California at Santa Barbara, and the San Francisco
Department of Public Health, among others. CERD
trainings are springing up across the country. In April
2004, a ground-breaking National Workshop was
conducted in Washington, D.C.
Conclusions
In the current ambling and failed drug education
environment, CERD's Resilience Drug Education offers an
evidence-based, paradigm-changing alternative possessing several potential benefits:
- Resilience Drug Education balances an
environment that is supportive of youth
with a directed focus on the specific
protective factors and appropriate
information that allow for lifelong
thriving.
- It costs little. The curriculum works with
an educator's professional discretion, an
Instructor's Resilience Education Guide and a
drug information guide. With approximately four experiential training sessions
spread over time, participants can
incorporate Resilience Drug Education
into their practice.
- It is likely to be taken up by educators
because it has a development orientation
and can be incorporated into any class.
Not everyone is a natural at connecting
with young people, but nearly everyone
can improve the process of working with
them.
- It develops an interactive, caring,
connected community that offers a
reasoned, scientifically-based hope for
drug education. Resilience Drug Education meshes with the best of what we
know about effective education and
lifelong development.
Overall, Resilience Drug Education sends a
critical message to young people and the adults they are
working with: they are cared for. By providing accurate
information that young people can verify through various
sources--the Internet, youth culture, or self-exploration--a focus on resilience builds adult credibility and
allows youth to positively connect with adults, further
supporting their own lifelong development. This felt
sense of meaning and belonging paves the way for the
information to be delivered and deeply learned. A reductionist way of viewing this approach might be as follows:
(harm reduction - problem remediation) + protective
factor support = Resilience Drug Education.
Mileposts on the road-map to change
In light of this opportunity, be wary of two issues.
First, "resilience" as an alternative is a currently fashion-
able buzz word. Many say they are already conducting
resilience-oriented work. Regrettably, what we find is that
resilience is often "risk wrapped." It has been recently
determined that for many, underlying the language of
resilience there appears to be an adherence to a risk,
deficit based, or problem remediation focus on young
people (Brown, in press). "Risk wrapping" resilience
worsens the situation by mis-identifying resilience. This
in turn serves to preserve the risk and
deficit drug education paradigm.
Second, there is no substitute for those
who are trained in the processes of
Resilience Drug Education. The most
significant error made when offering a
reasoned alternative to drug education is
the focus on information at the expense of
instruction. Knowing how to mobilize
protective factors for skills development is
key. There is a shortage of people experienced in facilitating the development of a
process that supports honest interaction
with youth. What we tend to see is an
example (i.e. "Johnny is resilient because
he is connected to his teacher") serving as
a surrogate for experiential facilitation
(e.g. "this is how Johnny becomes con-
nected with his teacher to learn how to
effectively make drug decisions"). As has
been described throughout this article,
this is educational process. Actually
experiencing the development process is
what teaches this process for making drug-related decisions. The lack of such experiences when focusing on the process is
called "experiential surrogacy."
"Risk wrapping" resilience and
experiential surrogacy serve as signposts
for the current period of changing ap-
proaches to drug education. Although
encased in wide-ranging program names
and words, they are the mile markers for
narrowly defined, similar and failed programs. While
disconcerting for some, these signposts also indicate that
there is a significant opportunity for positive programs
that honor youth and support a change in drug education.
It is important to continue our popular and scientific
discourse. It is also important to critically examine often
deceptively effective programs. Finally, it is essential to
support real youth development services, such as Resilience Drug Education. In this period of change, if we
endeavor to shift from a problem remediation focus to a
youth development focus in drug education, we will have
done much to better the lives of young people.
|