Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

(1)

Response

Response

Chairman John Glenn

Questions for the Record for Mr. John Luke

You state that the Cleveland school system relies on
certain "commercially developed curriculum packages" to
teach drug education.

(a) How did they choose these packages? Did they get any
guidance from the State or Federal government?

(b)

The Cleveland district used three commercially-
developed curricula packages: Children Are People (for
grades kindergarten through 5), ME-OLOGY (for grade
6), and CLEAR CHOICES (for grade 9). These programs
were implemented under the district's drug prevention
and intervention plan before the Drug-Free Schools
program came about. The district selected these three
programs when it found outside sources willing to pay
for them. For example, the Children Are People
program was underwritten by local Burger King
resturants and a local foundation. Burger King had
been sponsoring this program in another Ohio city, and
when the Cleveland district sought financial support
for drug education, Burger King agreed to also support
the program in Cleveland.

When Drug-Free Schools funds became available, the district expanded these programs to cover more schools and students. The district did not seek nor obtain help from the state or federal government in selecting its programs.

Are the schools evaluating the programs on any regular basis?

To date program evaluations have consisted basically of surveys of teacher and student perceptions and opinions of the strengths and weaknesses of the programs being used. District annual evaluation reports to the state education agency also include descriptive information on district programs and participation levels. However, the district has not assessed its programs' effectiveness in changing students' knowledge, attitudes or behaviors regarding the use of drugs or alcohol.

(2)

Response

Response

You report that neither the State nor the local school districts in Ohio has undertaken a formal evaluation of the drug-free school program.

(a) Do you know whether there are plans to carry out such an evaluation?

(b)

The 1989 amendments to the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1986 require states to submit a report to the Secretary of Education every 2 years on state and local program effectiveness. The Department of Education is developing guidance for the states and districts to follow in conducting these required evaluations. An Ohio state education agency official told us the agency did not know how it would meet this requirement because of the wide variety of programs in the state. A Cleveland district official told us the district planned to develop (through a contracted student survey) baseline data on student knowledge, attitudes and behaviors regarding drug use by the end of school year 1989-90.

How would you advise that such an evaluation be
designed? What kind of information would be most
useful in determining the grants' effectiveness?

In 1988 the Department of Education published guidance on selecting and implementing curricula which suggests use of such data as (1) indicators of curriculum effectiveness, (2) school and law enforcement records of drug-related incidents, (3) use of intervention and referral services, (4) student surveys, (5) feedback from staff and parents, (6) participation in drug-free activities, and (7) analyses of program service delivery.

A study by the Departments of Education and Health and
Human Services reported that traditionally researchers
have measured the effectiveness of prevention programs
by three types of outcomes: changes in students' drug
and alcohol knowledge, attitudes and use. Decreased
use would be the most significant indicator of program
effectiveness. However, measuring decreased use and
determining whether the decrease was attributable to
the prevention program or to other factors is a costly
and complex analytical process, typically involving
the undesirable prospect of not providing the drug
education program to students in a control group and
comparing their outcomes to outcomes of students
allowed to participate in the drug education program.

[blocks in formation]

As stated above, the Department is developing guidance
for use in state and local program evaluations. A
Department official told us that the evaluations would
probably be comprised of data readily available at the
state education agency and Governors' offices, such as
the number of drug-related arrests, referrals, and
suspensions.

Could an effective evaluation program be designed
which was not prohibitively expensive?

Our work to date under this study was not designed to address this specific question and has not provided sufficient information to enable us to conclude whether an effective evaluation program would be prohibitively expensive. However, we plan to gather additional information on the issue of program evaluation in the remaining phases of our study, and will address the issue further in future reporting on our findings.

Can you give an assessment of which money was better
spent--the Governor's discretionary grants (which he
is able to target to specific high-risk children) or
the formula grants to the local school districts?
While our review did not assess which monies were
better spent, we found that there is not always a
clear distinction between the uses of the Governors'
grants and the formula grant funds. For example, some
of the Ohio Governor's grant funds have been used to
expand coverage of programs intended to benefit all
students, while in Hamilton, Ohio, some of the formula
grants were used to develop support groups for
students at high risk of alcohol abuse. Given the
magnitude and seriousness of the drug and alcohol
problems the nation faces, it does not seem
unreasonable to attack the problems through both
discretionary grants to governors as well as formula
grants to local school districts. Providing drug and
alcohol education to all students, not just those
considered at high risk, is clearly needed.

TESTIMONY

SENATE GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

HEARING

FEBRUARY 13, 1990

SENATOR JOHN GLENN, CHAIRMAN

THE

SENATOR GLENN, MY NAME IS DEBRA LEWIS CURLEE, CO-DIRECTOR OF THE YOUTH ACTION PROJECT OF THE FEDERATION FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING. PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS THE COMPLEX NEEDS OF TODAYS YOUTH. MY TESTIMONY WILL ADDRESS THOSE NEEDS AND HOPEFULLY PROVIDE INSIGHT TO THE NEED FOR A MORE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO SOLVING PROBLEMS.

DRUG ABUSE AND MISUSE, TEENAGE PREGNANCY AND EARLY CHILDBEARING, DROPOUT, JUVENILE CRIME AND YOUTH GANGS, AND YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT ARE SYMPTOMS OF A BROADER COMMUNITY PROBLEM. WHEN YOUTH DO NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGEMENT, THEY ARE NOT LIKELY TO SET GOALS OR PLANS FOR THE FUTURE. THE RESULTS MAYBE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE WHICH INTERFERE WITH DEVELOPING THE NECESSARY SKILLS TO INSURE A PRODUCTIVE ADULTHOOD.

WE MUST REFOCUS OUR EFFORTS TOWARD PREVENTION AND BUILD ON THE ENERGY OF OUR YOUNG PEOPLE AND THEIR NEED FOR COMMITMENT. YOUNG PEOPLE WHO HAVE STRONG TIES TO THEIR FAMILIES, SCHOOL, COMMUNITY, SPIRITUAL AFFIRMATION AND WORK, AND ARE INVOLVED IN SOME TYPE OF POSITIVE YOUTH ACTIVITIES ARE LESS LIKELY TO GET INVOLVED IN ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIORS.

FAMILIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS OFTEN DO NOT PROVIDE THAT STABILITY AND VALUES RE-ENFORCEMENT THAT ENABLES YOUTH ΤΟ GAIN A SENSE OF IDENTITY AS ACHIEVING AND CONTRIBUTING MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY. THEY HAVE FEW ROLE MODELS THAT DEMONSTRATE LEGITIMATE PATHS FOR ACHIEVEMENT. THEY HAVE MANY ROLE MODELS WHO DEMONSTRATE NEGATIVE SHORT CUTS TO ACQUIRING POSSESSIONS AND STATUS.

PREVENTION IS THE ANSWER. IT IS A SOCIETAL ACTION TO PRECLUDE OR CORRECT ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIORS. AS A SOCIETY WE TEND TO PROVIDE FEW SUPPORT TO OUR AT-RISK YOUTH UNTIL THEY GET INTO TROUBLE. EVEN OUR INTERVENTIONS ARE OFTEN DESIGNED AS "QUICK FIXES".

PAGE 2

TESTIMONY

FEBRUARY 13, 1990

SENATOR GLENN

UNITED STATES STATISTICS AT A GLANCE:

[ocr errors]

HIGHEST RATE OF TEEN ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG USE OF ANY
INDUSTRIALIZED NATION

28% OF OUR 17 AND 18 YEAR OLDS DO NOT COMPLETE HIGH SCHOOL

13% OF HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES FAIL TO REACH READING AND WRITING COMPETENCE BEYOND THE SIXTH GRADE LEVEL

13% OF ALL 17 YEAR OLDS ARE FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE

BETWEEN 1985 AND 1986 THE HOMICIDE RATE INCREASED
17% FOR 15-24 YEAR OLDS

NEARLY TWO-THIRDS OF VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED BY
12-19 YEAR OLDS INVOLVE VICTIMS UNDER 18

TEEN PREGNANCY RATE IS ONE OF THE HIGEST IN THE WESTERN
WORLD

CUYAHOGA COUNTY/CLEVELAND, OHIO STATISTICS AT A GLANCE:

t

SINCE 1983 THERE IS AN 100% INCREASE IN JUVENILE
ARREST FOR DRUG RELATED OFFENSES

IN 1982 JUVENILES WERE ONLY 1% OF THE ARREST FOR
NARCOTIC RELATED CRIMES. IN 1989 JUVENILES WERE 15%
OF THE ARREST

IN 1989 THERE WAS A 14% INCREASE IN AGGRAVATED ARREST.
A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF THOSE WERE UNDER THE AGE OF 18

50% OF NINTH GRADERS EITHER DROPOUT OR DO NOT COMPLETE 12TH GRADE IN THE FOUR YEAR SPAN

50 COUNTIES IN THE STATE OF OHIO HAVE A HIGHER RATE OF TEEN BIRTHS BUT CUYAHOGA RANK 1ST IN OUT-OF-WEDLOCK BIRTHS TO TEENS AND ADULT WOMEN

26% OF BIRTHS TO TEENS IN CLEVELAND WERE TO THOSE WITH AT LEAST ONE CHILD

« AnteriorContinuar »