School-based substance use prevention programs are a key tool in delivering anti-drug messages to youngsters and adolescents. Although most of the current programs across the nation focus solely on prevention, they tend to lack effectiveness due to content and teachers’ inability to convey the urgency of the issue at hand.
At a panel hosted by the Duke Transdisciplinary Prevention Research Center and the Center for Child and Family Policy, national and state-level practitioners and experts and University-based prevention researchers discussed possible approaches to strengthening the link between research and community needs in terms of substance use programming.
Keynote speaker William Modzeleski, associate deputy undersecretary of the U.S. Department of Education, spoke of the importance of addressing the ineffectiveness in prevention programming in schools. “As times change, the products need to change, as well,” he said.
Modzeleski noted that there are 53 million students and 3 million teachers in grade schools across the country. With such a large system, it is difficult for current drug programs to have an impact. As a result, the need for more effective programming becomes increasingly crucial. Modzeleski emphasized holistic strategies—not just the implementation of individual programs.
Susan Alexander, executive director of the Transdisciplinary Prevention Research Center, and several of the other panelists said substance abuse programming should not only be a school issue, as it requires the effort of the entire community.
“Teachers have enough responsibility with a regular curriculum and the value placed on test scores. They should not have to be the only ones responsible for drug and alcohol education,” Alexander said. “The issues need to be reframed and new training to teachers may be necessary.”
Another topic covered at the panel was that government legislation calls for the funding of programs that are “scientifically-based.” Research conducted through experimental methods and rigorous data analyses should provide evidence that the program to be used will reduce violence and illegal drug use.
“Those who do the research and those who use the research have difficulty communicating,” said Jeffrey Valentine, adjunct assistant professor in the Duke Department of Psychology and research scientist in the Program in Education. “They don’t connect often enough.”
Researchers do not always know exactly what the practitioners need, so they cannot design strong adolescent programming that is practical to implement, Valentine said. In addition, the practitioners are not always updated on the latest research findings. If the results are written in the manner of traditional scientific research, the program coordinators may have difficulty understanding them.
Senior Paul Novick, a member of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, said the biggest problem with current drug policy is that many people do not recognize the difference between prevention and education.
“In the U.S., programs are fear-based. We tell kids ‘don’t do it’ or ‘it will kill you,’ but we never honestly explain the effects or consequences of the drugs,” Novick said. “Teenagers are curious. We need a more balanced education.”
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.