00001.tif

PDF

Download

Open document

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this docum ent have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of ^techniques is^ provided to help you understand markings or patterns which mayiappear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" fo r pages apparently lacking from the docum ent photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a targe round black mark, it is an indication th at the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material bei p h o to g rap h e d the photographer followed a definite m ethod.Sh "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing a ^ th e upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoij»Trorn left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If ^ c e s s a ry , sectioning is continued again — beginning below the fjp tf row and continuing on until complete. y y 4. The majority of users indicate that the textugf Content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher qualjt^ reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing th e Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. University Microfilms 300 North Z eeb Road Ann Arbor, M ichigan 48106 A Xerox E ducation Company 72-21,660 COOK, Glenn Dearie, 1931- MULLENDER, John Wayne, 1930- ATTITUDES TOWARD DRUG ABUSE AND THE ROLE OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL. University of Southern California, Ed.D. , 1972 Education, administration Please Note: Both authors received degrees at University of Southern California, Ed.D., 1972. University Microfilms, A X ER O X Com pany, Ann Arbor, Michigan i i 72-21,660 MULLENDER, John Wayne, 1930- Please see COOK, Glenn Dearie, 1931- University Microfilms, A X E R O X Com pany, Ann Arbor, Michigan 0 1972 JOHN WAYNE MULLENDER & GLENN DEARLE COOK ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. ATTITUDES TOWARD DRUG ABUSE AND THE ROLE OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the School of Education The University of Southern California In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education by John Wayne Mullender Glenn Dearie Cook June 1972 This dissertation, written under the direction of the Chairman of the candidate’s Guidance Committee and approved by all members of the Committee, has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the School of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education. Date. Dean Guidance Committee PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES................................................................................ Chapter I. THE PROBLEM AND ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY................................................................................... Introduction Statement of the Problem Hypotheses Assumptions Limitations Delimitations Procedures Definitions of Term s Organization of the Study II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH........................................................................... The Drugs of Abuse Drug Use Patterns Contributing Factors to Drug Abuse Continuing Research Control of Drug Abuse Drug Abuse Educational and Administrative Practices Chapter Summary III. PROCEDURES..................................................................... Authorization of the Study Endorsement of the Study Development of the Attitude Survey Instrument and Questionnaire on Drug Abuse Control Efforts Chapter Page Definition of the Sample Survey Procedures and Response Statistical Treatm ent of the Data IV. ATTITUDES TOWARD DRUG ABUSE HELD B Y STUDENT, CERTIFICATED, AND TRUSTEE The Factor Analyses and Factor Titles Attitudes of the Student, Certificated, and Trustee Groups Attitudes of Respondent Age Groups Attitudes of Adults with and without School-Age Children Attitudes of Certificated Groups Attitudes of Students Living with and Not Living with Both Parents Attitudes of Students Indicating and Not Indicating a Course including Instruction in the Dangers of Drugs Attitudes of T rustees, Certificated Subgroups, and Student Subgroups Attitudes of Students by School toward Drug Abuse Selected Findings from the Preceding Comparisons V. THE RELATIONSHIP OF DRUG ABUSE DISCIPLINARY, EDUCATIONAL, AND COUNSELING PRACTICES Disciplinary, Educational, and Counseling Practices Attitudes of Students Compared with Responses from D istricts Chapter Summary GROUPS 84 TO STUDENT ATTITUDES 187 VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................... 222 Summary Selected Findings iii Chapter Page Conclusions Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................ 253 APPENDICES.............................................................................................. 260 A. Legislative Counsel Opinion and Subcommittee L etter of E n d o rsem en t.......................................................... 261 B. Los Angeles County Counsel Opinion and Los Angeles County Trustees E n d o rsem en t............................................. 267 C. Attitude Survey on Drug Abuse and Answer Sheets . .. . 270 D. Cover L etters to Superintendents and T ru s te e s ............. 279 E. Cover L etter to D istrict A dm inistrators........................... 283 F. Cover L etter and Enclosures to P rin cip als..................... 289 G. Follow-up Letter to Certificated R espondents................ 299 H. Juvenile Drug A rrests: Offense by Year of Birth and Year of A rrest........................................................................... 301 I. California Code Provisions. . ........................................... 305 J. Example of Method Used for Comparison of D istrict Practices to Student A ttitudes............................................... 309 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Trustee Personal D a ta ............................................................. 71 2. Certificated Staff Personal D ata............................................ 72 3. Personal C haracteristics of Students in the Sample of Eleven Suburban High Schools.............................................. 75 4. School and Attendance Area Descriptive D ata................... 77 5. Factor Significance, Factor Reliability (RV k .)> and Group Differences for Student, Certificated, and Trustee G ro u p s...................................... 103 6. Factor Significance, Factor Reliability (R^k .), and Group Differences for Respondent Age Groups.............. 116 7. Factor Significance, Factor Reliability, and Group Differences for Certificated Groups................................. 122 8. Significance of Difference in Factor Means and Reliability of Difference between Students Living with Both Parents and Other Students............................... 127 9. Responses of Students Living with Both Parents, Responses of Other Students, and Significance of F Ratios by Item ............................................................ . 128 10. Significance of Difference in Factor Means and Reliability of Difference between Students Indicating Having Taken a Course in Dangers of Drugs and Students Not Indicating a C ourse....................................... 135 v Table Page 11. Responses of Students Indicating Having Taken a Course in Dangers of Drugs, Responses of Students Not Indicating, and Significance of F R a tio s ................. 136 12. Factor Significance, Reliability, and Homogeneity of Factor Means among Students Indicating a Course, Not Indicating a Course, Certificated Groups, and T rustees................................................................................... 147 13. School Factor Means, Significance of F Ratios, and New Duncan Range Homogeneous Sets of Means at . 05 Protection L evel............................................................. 153 14. Percentage of Students Indicating a Disciplinary M easure as Probable in Cases of Drug Abuse at Their School........................................................................... 155 15. Rank-Difference Correlation of Expected Disciplinary M easures of School Samples Correlated with Mean Factor Attitudes of School S am ples.................................. 157 16. Student Descriptive Data as a Percentage of the School Sam ple...................................................................................... 159 17. Rank-Difference Correlation of Student Descriptive Data and Drug Course Data by School with School Attitude Factor Means.......................................................... 160 vi CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY Introduction Drug misuse is a growing national problem. Parents, school boards, and the staffs of secondary schools have become extrem ely concerned as the rate of abuse continues to ascend in spite of drug education and control program s. The danger is documented in the rising statistics on the use of drugs in recent years. The following estim ates are based on testimony presented before Congress by Stanley F. Yolles (54), director of the National Institute of Mental Health: Whereas for many years the number of narcotic addicts was stable at around 60,000, it is widely e s ti mated today that more than 100,000 Americans are addicted to narcotic drugs. F urther, the problem, long a m ajor blight of our urban ghettos, appears to be spreading to the suburbs. A conservative estim ate of persons who have used m arijuana at least once is about five million. Some 35 percent of our college students are estim ated to have experimented with this agent and five percent with LSD. About eight billion amphetamine tablets are produced in a year--enough to provide each man, woman and 2 child in the United States with 35 doses. About three and a half billion barbiturate capsules are produced annually. It is estim ated that between 200,000 and 400,000 persons abuse the new non-barbiturate sedatives and tranquilizers. (54:14) Addressing the Governors' Conference on Narcotics and Drugs in Washington, D. C ., on December 3, 1969, President Nixon said that the drug problem had become a national problem that hits the young, the old, the rich, and the poor. Nixon recited statistics stating that some eight million Americans were using m arijuana, including one-third of the college students and 16 per cent of the high school students. An indication of the extent of the problem in California is reflected in a rre sts for drug offenses of both adults and juveniles. The California Bureau of Criminal Statistics reported a growth rate in juvenile a rre sts of 115 per cent in the 1967-1968 period (32:5). The 1969 figures show a 22.7 per cent increase over 1968, indicating that although the rate of increase had slowed, the frequency continued to increase. Paul Woodring, writing in the Saturday Review of L iterature, reported results of an investigation by Richard Blum, director of the Psycho-Pharmacology Project at the Institute for the Study of Human Problems, Stanford University (28:87). Blum investigated drug usage among students in five western colleges and universities and in four 3 California high schools, with the following result: What we see now is a rapidly increasing tempo. While it took approximately ten years, by our estim ate, for experi mentation and use to shift from the older intellectual artistic group to graduate students, it took only an estimated five years to catch on among undergraduates and two or three years to move to a significant number of high school students, and then, within no more than two or three years to move to a significant number of junior high school students, and then, within no more than two years to move to upper elem entary grades. (28:87) It seems evident that drug abuse is a serious problem in society. The public schools are placed in the unenviable position of dealing with a large number of young people who are violating the law in regard to drugs. Even the most stringent efforts by schools to control drug abuse appears to have had little effect outside of the school. The Los Angeles Times of January 12, 1969 reported that the Grossmont Union High School D istrict near San Diego expelled 163 students for drug violations. A survey in the 17,000-student d istrict indicated that 4, 000 students would be expelled under the d istrict's current policy if all offenders were detected (18:2). Drug abuse counterm easures by school districts have ranged from automatic expulsion to counseling, drug education pro gram s, and evangelistic assem blies. School authorities are not quite sure what the results of the efforts are or, for that m atter, what the dimensions of the problem are. Statistics on a rre st rates are at best only indications of the lower lim its of the actual abuse going on. 4 Until recent years, education on the dangers of drugs was limited to a unit in science or health education. More recently the efforts of the schools have seemed to be based on much the same assumptions as before, with an extension of the instruction to other classes in some instances and the inclusion of parents through m eet ings and m ail-hom es. The assumptions may be summarized in this way: Students will refrain from abusing drugs if they are fully in formed of the physiological, psychological, and legal consequences that will, in the view of the teacher, result. Since the reasons for drug abuse extend beyond the school into the relationship of the student to his parents, his peers, and to society generally, school officials have been frustrated when called upon to provide solutions through education. Not sure of what can be done, they have acted on the uneasy faith that doing something is better than doing nothing at all. Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study was to discover and analyze the attitudes toward drug abuse and the role of the school in selected suburban high school and unified school districts in southern Califor nia. More specifically, an answer was sought to the following question: What are the attitudes of students, certificated personnel, 5 and trustees toward the relationship of the schools to the problem of drug abuse? Hypotheses As an approach to the question of what should be the role of the schools, the investigation was made in term s of attitudes toward the m easures that the schools have been taking in attempting to lim it drug abuse. Seven hypotheses were formulated. Stated as null, these hypotheses held that no significant differences exist among the defined groups in their attitudes toward the following statement: The efforts of the schools to reduce drug abuse have been appropriate and effective. The respondent groups were defined in the following state ments: 1. Among the students, certificated staff, and trustees there are no significant differences in attitudes toward the above statement. 2. Within the combined respondent groups, there are no significant differences in attitudes among age groups with respect to the above statement. 3. Within the adult group, there are no significant attitudinal differences between those who have children of school age and those who do not. 6 4. Within the certificated group, there are no significant attitudinal differences among those holding different certificated assignm ents. 5. Within the student group, there are no significant attitudinal differences between those living with both parents and those not living with both parents. 6. Within the student group, there are no significant attitudinal differences between those who indicate that they have taken a course including instruction on the dangers of drugs and those who do not indicate that they have taken such a course. 7. Within the student group, there are no significant attitudinal differences among students who attend different schools. Assumptions The following assumptions were basic to the study: 1. It was assumed that through factoral analysis an attitude survey instrum ent could be developed that would be valid in m easuring the attitudes of the respondents toward the propriety and effectiveness of the efforts of the schools to lim it drug abuse. 7 2. It was assumed that the d istrict practices questionnaire would elicit responses that reflect accurately the pro gram s of the districts aimed at reducing drug abuse. Limitations The following were lim itations of the study: 1. There was some self-selection in the trustee sample. 2. Some d istricts were not willing to participate in the study. This lim ited the response of the certificated and trustee groups. It did not affect the student sample because there were sufficient schools from which to choose. 3. The legal lim itations imposed by Education Code section 10901 prevented asking several questions that would have been useful in determining the relationship of attitudes to descriptive variables. 4. Some adult respondents were reluctant to speculate on the degree of drug abuse. Delimitations The following were delimitations of the study: 8 1. Requests for participation were sent only to unified and high school d istricts in Los Angeles County. 2. The eleven sample high schools were chosen from only suburban school d istrict attendance areas. 3. No attem pt was made to determ ine the effectiveness of d istrict practices beyond the expression of student attitudes toward these practices. Procedures An attitude survey instrum ent was developed. Question naires relating to the student population to be sampled were developed to be sent to the d istricts. Questionnaires designed to gather infor mation on d istrict disciplinary, counseling, and educational efforts relating to drug abuse were also constructed. The attitude survey instrum ent was adm inistered to 97 trustees, 101 certificated person nel, and 631 students. The student sample was drawn from 11 high schools. The questionnaires were sent to all of the high school and unified school d istricts in Los Angeles County. Twenty-one complete responses were received. The data from the attitude survey were factor-analyzed twice. A variety of tests was applied to determ ine if significant differences existed in the attitudes of the respondent groups. The 9 questionnaires were tabulated and compared statistically with the attitude profiles of the students in the case of districts from which the student samples were drawn. The district practices of all responding districts were categorized. Further details on the statistical treatm ent of the data are presented in Chapter III. Definitions of Term s The following definitions were used in the investigation of drug abuse attitudes among the respondent groups: Attitude. - -Attitude is a favorable or unfavorable inclination toward some situation, person, or thing in a particular m anner--for example: with love, hate, fear, or resentm ent--to a particular degree of intensity (8:48). Drug abuse. - -Drug abuse is the im proper use to excess of drugs and other substances not commonly considered drugs. T rustee group. - -School board members elected or appointed in a manner prescribed by law to serve for a limited number of years on the policy-making board of the school d istrict com prised the trustee group. Certificated group. --Personnel hired by the school d istrict holding a credential authorizing teaching, counseling, or supervision' of instruction within the school d istrict comprised the certificated 10 group. Examples from the sample are superintendents, assistant or associate superintendents, principals, vice-principals, counselors, and teachers. The term "certificated" is used as a noun to refer to this group. Student group. --Students in the regular high schools selected for the student sample, m ost of them at the eleventh grade level, com prised the student group. High school. - -High school is the school division following elem entary school, most often com prised of grades nine through twelve (8:266). Unified school d istric t. --A unified school d istrict is a d istrict providing a public school program from kindergarten through grade twelve (8:182). Addiction. --Addiction is the physical dependence upon a drug, including the development of tolerance and withdrawal symp toms (38:1). Dangerous drugs. - -Dangerous drugs are those commonly misused substances that are sniffed, smoked, swallowed, or injected to obtain a mental or physical condition that is not part of recognized m edical, psychological, or scientific treatm ent. Examples of m is used substances are glue, gasoline, m arijuana, amphetamines, barbiturates, LSD, m escaline, m ethadrine, heroin, and cocaine. 11 Dependence. —Dependence is either a psychological or physical requirem ent for continued drug use in order to maintain a sense of well-being and equilibrium, usually the result of frequent use for a prolonged period. Ilepressants. - -D epressants are drugs that dull the senses, relax, and soothe the user. Drug. --A drug is a substance intended for use in the diag nosis, cure, mitigation, treatm ent, or prevention of disease in man or other animal (15:9695). Drug habituation. --Drug habituation is the psychological desire to repeat the use of drugs interm ittently or continuously for emotional reasons (38:91). Hallucinogen. - -This is a substance that produces hallucina tions, perception of objects with no reality (15:1023). M arijuana. --M arijuana is the dried leaves and flowering tops of the pistillate hemp plants that are the source of the drug cannabis and are sometimes smoked in cigarette form with conse quent action of the drug on the higher nerve centers (15:1381). Narcotic. --A narcotic is a substance that induces sleep, dulls the senses, or relieves pain. Legally, the term refers to a number of drugs that have been grouped together for control. Under federal law, the term includes opiates and cocaine. Under m ost 12 state statutes, marijuana is also classed as a narcotic (36:2). Opiate. - -This is a medicine containing or derived from opium and tending to induce sleep and alleviate pain (15:1582). Stimulant. --A stimulant is an agent that produces a tem por ary increase of the functional activity of the central nervous system, either by direct action as by excitation or by indirect action through the removal of inhibitions (15:2244). Withdrawal. --W ithdrawal is an illness resulting when physical dependence on a narcotic has been established and the n a r cotic is withdrawn—often painful and traum atic if not accompanied by medical treatm ent. Organization of the Study Chapter I of this report was devoted to an introduction to the problem of the investigation, its purpose, delim itations, lim itations, hypotheses, and assumptions. The procedures were summ arized and the term s defined. Chapter II presents the results of a review of the literature and research related to drug abuse in the secondary schools. This chapter provides an orientation to the nature, extent, and status of the drug abuse problem and helps to provide a framework for in ter pretation of the results of the investigation. 13 Chapter III describes the design of the study and the pro cedures followed in developing the attitude instrum ent and question naires used in the study. It also outlines the statistical treatm ent of the data sampled. Chapter IV is an analysis of selected variables relating to attitudes. Chapter V is devoted to the disciplinary, counseling, and educational practices in Los Angeles County school districts. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations are p re sented in Chapter VI. A bibliography and appendices conclude the dissertation. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH This chapter consists of a review of the literature pertinent to the investigation. One objective of this chapter is to present an overview of the problem of drug abuse in the American society. A brief history of drug abuse and the characteristics of misused drugs is reviewed as part of the overview. The extent of abuse is estim ated by examining a rre s t statistics, opinion polls, and investigations by research ers. Recognizing that drug abuse is at least partly a symptom of deeper social problem s, the investigators have also presented a review of the current literature on sociological, psychological, genetic, and physiological determ inants. Federal and state laws relating to drug abuse are summarized. A review of existing drug education program s and drug abuse adm inistrative practices con cludes the chapter. 14 15 The Drugs of Abuse Man has for centuries attempted to change reality and his perception of reality by chemical means. There is evidence of the use of alcohol in the form of beer and berry wine as early as 6400 B.C. (28:86). In most instances, m ind-altering substances were used in religious cerem onies. In many parts of the world these r e ligious practices persist. The use of drugs has, if anything, increased with the pace of modern society. It has been alleged that the p ressures of this society have resulted in a drug-oriented culture. Drugs are used for a variety of purposes: to resto re health, lessen pain, induce calm , increase energy, create euphoria, and induce sleep. New drugs to alter one’s mood and state of conscious ness are constantly being developed. Properly used, however, drugs are of inestim able value to mankind. Insulin, morphine, penicillin, and even barbiturates are well known for their use in the alleviation of suffering, the prevention and treatm ent of disease, and the saving of human lives. The drugs liable to abuse are usually classified as narcotics and dangerous drugs. There is confusion concerning the medical and legal definitions of these term s. The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice defined them as follows: 16 N arcotics. The dictionary defines a narcotic as a sub stance that induces sleep, dulls the senses, or relieves pain. In law, however, it has been given an artificial meaning. It does not refer, as might be expected, to one class of drugs, each having sim ilar chemical proper ties or pharmacological effects. It is applied rather to a number of different classes of drugs that have been grouped together for purposes of legal control. Under the federal laws, narcotics include the opiates and cocaine. Under m ost state statutes marijuana is also a narcotic. (36:2) The three m ajor classes of non-narcotic drugs are stim u lants, depressants, and hallucinogens. Another class of dangerous drugs is the volatile intoxicants. For the organization of this chapter, the drugs liable to abuse will be classified as follows: (1) narcotics-- the opiates and cocaine; (2) marijuana; (3) dangerous d ru g s-- stim ulants, depressants, and hallucinogens; and (4) volatile intoxi cants. Narcotics Narcotics as defined above are divided into two m ajor categories, the opiates and cocaine. The opiates. --The m ajor derivatives of opium include morphine, heroin, and codeine. Many opiates are prescribed for use in approved medical settings. These substances are obtained from the juice of a particular species of poppy, the Papaver Somniferum (31:47). This poppy, known as the opium poppy, thrives in a hot, dry clim ate in such countries as India, Turkey, China, Egypt, and 17 Mexico. Morphine is an odorless, white, crystalline substance derived from opium. This substance was discovered early in the nineteenth century. Almost at once it became one of the most valu able drugs used in medicine. It acts on the central nervous system as an analgesic or pain killer. It is a very powerful drug and can be used only in sm all, carefully controlled doses. Heroin, known as diacetylemorphine, was developed in Germany in the early 1900s. It is a white, crystalline powder derived from morphine by means of a simple chemical process. Ironically, heroin was first promoted as a nonaddicting substitute for morphine and as a possible cure for morphine addiction. Doctors soon discovered, however, that the new substance was violently addicting. It is three or four tim es as potent as morphine and is somewhat more rapid in its action, especially when injected directly into the bloodstream . Codeine is derived directly from opium or prepared from morphine. It is comparable to morphine in its analgesic and addic tive properties but is considerably m ilder in its effect. It is a valu able medicinal drug used principally as a pain reliever and cough suppressant (31:52). Cocaine. - -Cocaine does not have the properties of the 18 opiates and is in no way sim ilar to heroin or morphine. It is, how ever, legally classified as a narcotic under both federal and state laws. Cocaine is the active constituent of the leaf of the South American cocoa plant, Erythrohylon Cocoa, which is grown in the mountainous region of Peru (31:53). In the United States cocaine was at one time widely used as a local anesthetic but now has been replaced by synthetic substitutes such as procaine and novocaine. At present cocaine is not a m ajor drug of abuse in the United States. Marijuana M arijuana, also marihuana, is a drug found in the flowering tops and leaves of the Indian hemp plant, Cannabis Sativa. The plant grows wild in a wide variety of soils and clim ates. Marijuana has been known and used for drug effects for several thousand years (31:25). It is presumed to be a native of Central Asia, but long before the tim e of C hrist its habitat had extended to the Orient and the Near East. There is no known medical use for m arijuana. It is commonly converted into cigarettes and consumed by smoking. Dangerous drugs Dangerous drugs include the stim ulants, depressants, and hallucinogens. The stim ulants. - -The most widely used and abused of the 19 stimulants are the amphetamines, which were first produced in the 1920s for medical use as stimulants to the central nervous system. Best known for their ability to combat fatigue and sleepiness, they are sometimes used to curb appetite. The most commonly abused stimulants are amphetamine (Benzedrine), dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine), and methamphetamine (Methedrine). "Pep pills, " 'bennies, " "uppers, " and "speed" are their common names. Prodigi ous quantities of amphetamines have been manufactured in the United States. The depressants. - -The best known depressants, or seda tives, are the barbiturates, made from barbituric acid and first produced in 1846. Barbiturates are manufactured for medical pur poses to reduce tension and anxiety, to treat certain psychosomatic disorders, and to induce sleep. The first sleep-producing barbitu rate was synthesized in 1903. Today there are over fifty commercial brands on the m arket (44:1). Besides barbiturates, other sedatives that may be abused include glutethimide (Doriden), chloral hydrate, brom ides, and certain minor tranquilizers such as meprobamate (Miltown, Equanil), and chlordrazepoxide (Librium). The hallucinogens. - -Hallucinogenic, or psychedelic, drugs and the controversy that surrounds them have recently aroused the 2 0 attention of the m ass media and the public. LSD is many tim es more potent than the older hallucinogens, such as peyote and mandrake. LSD, lysergic acid diethylamde, has only recently been synthesized; it was first developed in 1938 from ergot alkaloids (39:91). Ergot is a fungus that grows as a ru st on rye, a common grain plant. LSD is used legally only for controlled research. Minute amounts of the drug are capable of producing extrem e effects; a single ounce is enough to provide 300, 000 average doses. Other less known but powerful hallucinogens include peyote, m escaline, mandrake, psilocybin, and DMT. The mandrake root is mentioned in the Bible and was used by the Greeks and Romans. Peyote has been used ritualistically in Mexico for centuries and is obtained from the button-shaped growth of a cactus plant found grow ing wild in arid regions of that country. Mescaline is a natural alkaloid that occurs in the same plant. Peyote and m escaline have appeared in the illicit drug m arket in capsule and liquid form and as a w ater-soluble powder. Volatile intoxicants Volatile intoxicants include all substances that alter the state of consciousness when sniffed or inhaled. Examples are ether, nitrous oxide, paint thinner, airplane glue, and gasoline. 21 Drug Use Patterns There have been no definitive nationwide surveys on drug use and abuse patterns. Most statistics of nationwide use were projec tions based on police a rre s t records and on limited surveys. The following were only estim ates of the extent of abuse in the United States. Probably the best source of data was the Task Force Report on Narcotics and Drug Abuse produced by the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice (36:1). Another important source of m ore recent data was the pamphlets produced by the National Clearinghouse for Drug Abuse Information (38-45). These included abuse rates for LSD, m arijuana, and narcotics. Narcotics Opiates. - -There w ere no reliable data on the frequency with which illicit users had used opiates during any given time period. A rrest statistics gave an estim ate of use: the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, on December 1965, had reported 57,199 active addicts in the United States (46:47). The Federal Bureau of Narcotics sum m ar ies, however, had under-reported offenders. For example, Califor nia estim ates as reported by the California Bureau of Criminal Statistics showed a higher incidence of addiction than the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The latter reported a count of 6,624 for 1964, 22 while the form er reported 17,727 (46:47). The National Institute of Mental Health estim ated in 1970 the number of addicts at 200,000 and reported that more than half were under thirty years old, with a few as young as ten years old (41:1). Juvenile drug a rre sts compiled by the California State Department of Justice indicated there was a continuing rise in the arre sts of juveniles from 1960 to 1969 for opiate use (32:3). The rate of increase rose dram atically from 1965 to 1968, and declined somewhat in 1969. Blum's figure of 4 per cent in a metropolitan area probably cannot be interpreted as representative of nationwide abuse, since opiate use tends to be concentrated in urban areas. On the other hand, a rre s t statistics are probably a low estim ate of abuse, since it appears that many users have experimented with narcotics without becoming either addicted or identified. Despite the lack of precise information, available data indicated that opiate abuse is a signifi cant national social problem. Cocaine. --T his substance is used medically as a local anesthetic. There was no scientific data on the extent of illicit cocaine use in the United States. The United Nations reported an increase in international traffic, with the United States the principal im porter, or victim (36:61). In 1963, according to the Federal 23 Bureau of Narcotics data, about 1,546,666 individual doses of cocaine were distributed to hospitals and physicians for use with patients. Blum concluded that the medical use of cocaine was not associated with the development of any large number of cocaine-dependent p er sons (46:61). Marijuana Data were limited on the extent of use of m arijuana in the United States. Police statistics were an inadequate source of data because of the apparent concentration of a rre sts in low er-class groups and because m arijuana a rre sts were reported intermixed with heroin and opium a rre sts . There was no way of relating cases known to the authorities to actual use in the population. One pilot study reported by Blum in two west coast metropolitan areas stated that 9 per cent of the adult population had tried m arijuana, and 2 per cent were using it either occasionally or regularly (46:24). Powelson, student health officer and chief narcotics officer of the University of California at Berkeley, estim ated that 2 per cent of that student body were using marijuana (46:24). The Berkeley Police Department estim ated only 1 per cent as experim enters but none as regular users (46:24). A Gallup Poll reported that an estim ated five million adults had tried m arijuana. The proportion for the nation as a whole was 24 4 in 100, or an estimated five million adults; but, according to the poll, 12 persons in every 100 among young adults in their twenties said they had tried marijuana. These findings were recorded in a nationwide survey of adults twenty-one years of age and older (17:4). A previous Gallup survey of college students had shown 21 per cent saying they had tried m arijuana (17:4). When all age groups, including teenagers, were taken into account, a total of ten million Americans was estim ated to have tried m arijuana. The following table shows the adult "yes " response to the question used in the polls: "Have you, yourself ever happened to try m arijuana?" Per Cent N ationw ide..................................................... 4 21-29 y ears................................................ 12 30-49 y ears................................................ 3 50 years and over.................................... 1 M en............................................................. 6 Women........................................................ 2 College background................ 9 High school................................................ 3 Grade school............................................. 1 E ast............................................................. 5 M idw est..................................................... 2 South........................................................... 2 W e s t........................................................... 9 25 Interpreting the data, Gallup concluded the following: Age is clearly a key factor in attitudes toward m ari juana use. Studies have shown a high level of marijuana use among high school students in certain areas. When persons in the current survey were asked about the use of this drug by school students in their own communities, nine per cent guessed marijuana is used by "most" students. Thirty-seven per cent said "hardly any" or "none. " Another twenty per cent did not express an opinion. (17:4) The Gallup Poll seemed to validate the belief by authorities that a rre st statistics represented only a fraction of the large number of adults and young people who were using dangerous drugs. Records on the a rre sts of young people were even less accurate than the records on adult arrests; nevertheless, these statistics were an indication of trends in drug use and did provide a means of comparing age groups. The numbers of juvenile violations of state drug laws from 1960 through 1969 are shown in tabular and graphic form s in Appen dix H. Beginning in 1964, marijuana a rrests exceeded dangerous drug arrests; in 1969 the rates were reversed. Both categories showed an alarming increase from 1964 through 1969; however, there was a 15.9 per cent decrease in juvenile a rre sts for m arijuana, and the 1969 a rre s t statistics indicated a decline in the rate of increase over 1968. Police officials did not consider the decline in the rate of 26 increase as an indication of a decline in the use of drugs. Rather, they interpreted this development as the result of concentration of police effort on the more serious drug violators and, in some ju ris dictions, the saturation of maximum enforcement levels. The statistics shown in Appendix H indicate that m arijuana use started in the early teens and increased rapidly to a peak at age seventeen, then declined slightly. While estim ates varied with the methods of estimation used, authorities conceded generally that the use of m arijuana among young people has sharply increased in the last several years. The National Institute of Mental Health estim ated that as many as eight to twelve million Americans have used the drug at least once in their lives. Other estim ates ranged as high as twenty million. Dangerous drugs Stimulants. --The best known stimulants are the am pheta mines. These drugs are widely prescribed by physicians in attem pts to reduce weight, control fatigue, overcome minor depressions, and treat psychiatric disorders. In addition to supervised medical use, amphetamines are used by persons seeking to combat lethargy, obesity, and fatigue. Students, truck drivers, and night-shift w orkers have been reported as abusers of amphetamines to combat fatigue. Amphetamine abuse by college students has become a 27 significant problem. Social and private use has been reported for persons seeking excitement or mood changes in the sense of "kicks" or "highs. " Objective data on the incidence of abuse were difficult to obtain. Blum stated, "No drug census has been taken, so it is not possible to describe the actual evidence of use by population groups for the nation as a whole" (46:29). Production of amphetamines has been increasing in the United States: 75,000 pounds were produced in 1959, enough for twenty tablets per capita. In 1962 a survey of pro ducers showed a minimal production of 4.5 billion tablets (10 m illi gram s each), or twenty-five tablets per capita. Half of that produc tion was reported by the Food and Drug Administration to be going into illicit distribution channels (46:29). Depressants. - -The best known depressants are sedatives and barbiturates. The National Clearinghouse for Drug Abuse Infor mation reported that 178,000,000 prescriptions for mood-changing drugs were filled by U. S. pharm acies in 1967 (44:3). Of these p re scriptions, about 65 per cent were for sedative drugs; 31 per cent for barbiturates, other sedatives, and hypnotics; and 34 per cent for minor tranquilizers. Most of these prescriptions went to some 30,000,000 adult Americans. While the m ajority of these drugs are legally used for 28 medical purposes, an unknown but large quantity of barbiturates also enters illegal channels. Estim ates indicated that of all the barbitu rates manufactured in the United States, more than half were diverted to illicit use (44:3). The largest group of persons who have received p rescrip tions for barbiturates and tranquilizers have been adults over twenty years of age, principally those in the forty-to-fifty-nine age group. More recently, however, these drugs have been used m ore and more frequently by teenagers who have found them in the family medicine cabinet or obtained them from illegal sources (44:3). The hallucinogens. --A s in the case of other drugs, there was little research evidence on the extent of use of hallucinogens in the United States. Use appeared to be concentrated in young adults, ages twenty to thirty-five; but there were signs of rapid diffusion to high school age levels and, less rapidly, to middle-aged adults. No authority was willing to estim ate the number of Americans who have tried one or another of the hallucinogens. Volatile intoxicants Most identified sniffers of volatile intoxicants have been children in urban areas. Winick reported 2, 000 cases in New York City in 1963 (46:36). In the first five months of 1966 alm ost 100 cases of glue sniffing came under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles 29 Probation Department (2:22). A significant finding was that adults who had been glue sniffers as children tended to use drugs heavily in adult life, which indicated a psychological predisposition toward the use of drugs. Summary A review of the literature concerning drug use indicated little real, scientific evidence concerning the actual incidence of drug abuse in the United States. The incidence of abuse is probably not as serious as might be expected from reports in the m ass media; how ever, drug abuse is a m ajor concern to society. All of the current methods of determining the extent of the problem have deficiencies. Considerable research needs to be done to determ ine the actual incidence of drug abuse. Contributing Factors to Drug Abuse Considerable interest has been shown by behavioral scien tists in the sociological and psychological determ inants of drug abuse. H istorically, the generalization had been that drug abusers were predominantly minority group members in urban ghettos. The more recent trend was toward abuse by all segments of society. Heroin use had form erly been confined to males in urban ghettos, but later reports showed use among young people in the suburbs. 30 Marijuana had been used prim arily in the disadvantaged a re a s, in certain Mexican-American communities, and in some groups of jazz m usicians. L ater, m arijuana sm okers were found among middle and upper classes. U sers of hallucinogens were also found among the young people of these classes. Barbiturates and amphetamines were once abused chiefly by adults of the middle and upper classes. In recent years many youngsters of all classes have been abusing these drugs. Drug use and m isuse have changed so rapidly that research ers have found it difficult to keep up with the trends. In many instances, by the time patterns have been identified and pub lished, further changes in drug use have already occurred. Studies of drug use determ inants have been made on the assumption that if the determ inants could be identified, preventive m easures could be initiated. Major sources of data in the present investigation were H aroian’s study, "Adolescent Drug U se” (52), and the report of the President's Commission, Narcotics and Drug Abuse (36). There was no attem pt to review the large number of pharm aco logical studies. Sociological factors The sociological causes of drug abuse have been difficult to discover in view of the previously mentioned variations in the patterns that have cut across all segments of society. The assumption that 31 long h air, hip language, avant garde clothing, and a preference for rock music are sure signs of drug abuse has not been tenable. Nor could it be assumed that m inority group m em bers, ghetto dwellers, and jazz m usicians all have used drugs. The following studies were attem pts to discover some pattern among the individuals who had become involved in drug abuse. Haroian reported a study by Roberts where 69.4 per cent of juveniles arrested on drug charges in Los Angeles came from less- than-standard environments, as opposed to 25.2 per cent in the total Los Angeles population living in these environments (52:9). Roberts found also a preponderance of Mexican-American youths, and more boys than g irls, among drug user arrestees. These findings, how ever, had the usual lim itations of a rre s t statistics as true indices of the nature and scope of the problem. Yolles, in a study about m arijuana, found that 20 per cent of students in high school smoked m arijuana, with boys reporting more use than g irls (54:14). He reported that the m ajor determ inants were availability of the drug and peer acceptance of its usage. Haroian reported a study by Yablonski where 700 question naires were distributed randomly in hippie areas to people who had the self-concept of a hippie (52:10). The study revealed the median age to be 19.6 years. Boys com prised 75.5 per cent of the sample; 32 g irls, 24.5 per cent. High school graduates were 77.6 per cent. The family income of 70. 8 per cent was over $7,500. The drug use patterns in the sample were: m arijuana, 90.7 per cent; LSD, 68.2 per cent; methedrine, 46.0 per cent; amphetamines, 57.0 per cent; heroin, 2. 8 per cent; and other drugs, 56. 0 per cent. Reasons for "dropping out" of the "straight" society included escape from the rejections of society and the search for a better way of life. Chein identified a relationship between drug addiction and poor and overcrowded living conditions; between addiction and lower socioeconomic and minority group status; between addiction and delinquency; between addiction and dropping out of school; between addiction and unemployment; and between addiction and family disin tegration (2:9). Blum reported a study showing the residences of most opiate addicts to be in poor metropolitan areas (47:50). These neighbor hoods were found to be the most deprived areas, where a delinquent orientation to life existed. This orientation was characterized by a sense of futility, pessim ism , m istrust, negativism, defiance of authority, desire for immediate satisfaction, and a readiness to exploit others. The neighborhoods in New York City where heroin was heavily used were found to have these ch aracteristics: broken fam ilies, an excess of adult females over m ales, unemployed men 33 and working women, and low educational levels. Isadore Chein's studies of heroin addiction in New York suggested that heroin use becomes a natural social activity free of conflict within its particular subculture and that addiction is due to social and cultural factors other than any personality type or psycho logical conflict (52:12). Sharoff found narcotics abusers to come from the lowest socioeconomic group and from extrem ely deprived ghetto areas (26: 186). The great m ajority of LSD u sers were found to be m iddle-class university students. Joel Forte identified the following sociological determ inants in drug abuse: 1. Drugs of all kinds are advertised, propagandized, and glorified. 2. Older Americans present the role of a model of drug usage to cope with or enhance every aspect of contem porary life. 3. Peer groups exert p ressure to use drugs. 4. All m ind-altering drugs are readily available. 5. Abuse of one drug is interrelated with the abuse of other drugs. (This is not to be confused with the "stepping- stone" theory, which asserts a direct pharmacological 34 relationship between two or m ore d ru g s.) (7:194) Psychological factors There are as many psychological theories on drug abuse as there are schools of psychology. Freudians, for instance, related all dependency needs to the oral stage of a person's development. They classified drug abuse as an impulse neurosis--fulfillm ent of prim itive desires and absolution from the demands of maturity. William G. H ollester listed traits of the most vulnerable youth as: 1. Anger towards the father or an unusually close relation ship with the mother. 2. Excessive dependency, hostility, or withdrawal. 3. Unhappy, angry, cynical, and derogatory views of intimate relationships (22:2). Sebold suggested that adolescents are apt to use narcotics if they suffer from insecurity, inadequacy, and anxiety (52:13). He also believed that psychopathic adolescents use drugs for thrills and that imm ature adolescents often yield to peer p ressures in beginning a pattern of drug use. Sebold reported that although hallucinogens may attract the maladjusted and unstable, these drugs have a particu la r attraction to the curious intellectuals, who purport to use drugs to heighten creativity and deepen personal insight. They also have 35 serious doubts about themselves and are seeking outlets for neurotic anxieties. The intellectuals, however, are a minority of the drug abusers. Blum reported a study by G erard and Kornetsky, who found that addicts had had severe personality malfunctions as adolescents (47:51). Particular problems of adolescent addicts revealed by this study were constricted emotional responsiveness, regression or withdrawal under stress, lack of close relationships with others, underutilization of abilities, and oversensitivity to rejection. Gen eral unhappiness, difficulty in sexual identification, and poor in te r personal techniques were also characteristic. Genetic and physiological factors There has been little research on genetic and physiological factors associated with drug abuse. In the United States this has probably been due to the emphasis on the importance of environment, social class, mobility, education, and opportunity. Yet in recent years there have been advanced developments in genetics and m olec ular biology that have drawn attention to behavioral genetics. Blum reviewed several such studies and reported the following: Work by Fischer and Griffin (1961, 1964) on humans suggest[s] genetic features associated with cigarette smoking, and work on animals by Nichols (1950) and by Rodgers and McClearn (1962) show[s] that liability 36 to morphine addiction can be bred in strains of rats; thus demonstrating that in anim als, at least, genetic components play a role in the development of opiate dependency. (47:53) DeRopp suggested that certain physiques carry with them weaknesses or propensities that may influence the selection of drugs, if not the initial decision to use drugs. (52:7). Haroian in reviewing these studies postulated that physio logical factors, as well as sociopsychological factors, may contribute to drug abuse (52:9). Summary The research indicated that the following sociological and psychological factors may be important in identifying individuals who become drug abusers: Sociological factors: 1. Poor and overcrowded living conditions 2. Minority group membership 3. Residence in metropolitan areas 4. Low educational level 5. Fam ily disintegration 6. Availability of drugs 7. Peer acceptance of drug use 8. Late male adolescence and early manhood 9. Residence in high delinquency areas 37 Psychological factors: An individual who 1. Adjusts poorly to stre ss. 2. Has a weak self-concept. 3. Has ambivalent sex identification. 4. Has a vaguely defined purpose in life. 5. Yields easily to peer pressure. 6. Has an unusual degree of hostility. 7. Has average intelligence but uses his abilities only partially. 8. Is generally unhappy. 9. Is unusually cynical. 10. Has high anxiety. 11. Lacks close personal relationships. Genetic factors: No generalizations could be made, although initial research seemed promising. Blum cautioned of generalizing about the determ inants of drug abuse, as follows: Because so many addicts are drawn from economically and socially deprived groups in which the production of defective personalities is high, one m ust find the p re ponderance of studies showing disorders in opiate u sers. . . . A general problem exists in [that] . . . when the observations are made, the expected traits are found. What is needed are longitudinal studies in which popula tions at risk of opiate use are identified as children 38 before actual use of opiates begins, so that the pre-use characteristics can be described without being confounded by after-the-fact elements. (47:52) The President's Advisory Commission on Narcotics and Drug Abuse in issuing its reports summarized the bulk of the im pressions and findings on user characteristics and concluded that most users were from deprived social groups and that most suffered personality maladjustment. The report noted that individual motives differed, but that most of those identified by public agencies as drug users lacked vocational skills, economic opportunity, and person ality strength. Oriented toward the short-term experience rather than the long-term objectives, the u se rs' pattern of conduct before and after drug use was delinquent. The commission continued: "One should not conclude that all slum -reared persons are either psychi- atrically disordered, delinquent, or drug-prone. It is not known . . . which events lead one person to addiction, another to experiment only . . . "(47:52). The conclusion of these studies was that personality d is orders do not cause addiction. The conclusions were that, for most identified addicts, addiction is part of the constellation of m isery that pervades the socioeconomic deprivation of the big cities. Continuing Research Research is continuing and the number of studies is increas- 39 ing. The federal government has taken an active role in this research through its National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), a division of the U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. This agency supports research projects in all areas of drug abuse. Currently, NIMH is supporting fifty research projects that have narcotics or drug abuse as their principal focus (43:3). These studies range from examinations of the basic neurophysiology of drug action to studies of the psychosocial characteristics of u sers. For a better understanding of the motivation of the narcotics u sers, both in city ghettos and m iddle-class suburbs, research is being conducted on drug u sers within the context of their local neighborhoods. The focus is on the specific individual, with emphasis on his movement toward drug usage and his development of an addict identity. M arijuana. - -The effects of m arijuana are being studied to determ ine its psychological and physiological effects. In a recent laboratory study of a sm all number of people at Boston University, regular users of marijuana scored normally in psychological tests even when "high, " although their sense of time was distorted (43:10). NIMH is supporting psychosocial research on m arijuana in a study of 200 urban resident m arijuana users in New York. This study focuses on the initiation of the individual into m arijuana use, his motivation for continued use, the degree to which u sers form a community, and 40 the relationships between marijuana use and the use of other drugs. Other investigations by NIMH are planned in the physical effects of varying levels of dosage; the psychological and social consequences of use; and the effects of heavy and chronic use on the memory, learn ing, coordination, performance, and other intellectual processes of u sers. LSD. - -The scope of research by NIMH in hallucinogens covers a wide range of activity. One project focuses on developing a new type of mental health service specifically designed for teenagers who are persistent drug users (43:14). Several studies are directed toward the patterns of drug use among adolescents. Amphetamines and barbiturates. - -NIMH is supporting a survey of patterns of drug acquisition and use within the general population. These studies, it is hoped, will provide insight into the extent to which the United States has become a drug-oriented society. Results of the survey should provide a more accurate picture of how Americans view the use of mood-changing drugs. Summary. --Much research has been done and is being planned in the abuse of drugs; however, to understand scientifically the problem of drug abuse, one must look beyond the use of LSD, m arijuana, amphetamines, and barbiturates to some of the under lying causes of widespread drug use. Identification of these causes 41 will shed light on why people seek this form of escape. Control of Drug Abuse Until better methods of control have been developed, such as the improvement of conditions in society and effective educational program s, the most effective control m easures will be laws accom panied by effective enforcement procedures. The following sections describe the m ajor federal and California statutes that have been enacted1 to control narcotics and dangerous drugs. Details of these laws are included because of the diversity of opinion between adults and juveniles on this topic. Many of the attitude instrum ent item s described in chapters III and IV concern laws and law enforcement. Federal laws N arcotics. - -The basic control laws for the narcotics are the H arrison Narcotic Act of 1914 and the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act. The H arrison Act is a federal tax statute and is adm inistered by the Bureau of N arcotics, an agency of the T reasury Department. The statute imposes a tax upon the manufacture or importation of all narcotic drugs. Unauthorized possession under this statute is a crim inal offense, whether or not the drug is intended for personal use. Unauthorized sale or purchase is also a crim inal offense. The Uniform Narcotic Drug Act is the control statute in effect in most 42 states. Under this law, unauthorized possession and sale are also crim inal offenses. New federal penalty schedules were enacted by Congress in the Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (42:5). Under this legislation, illegal possession of narcotics is punishable as follows: F or the first offense, imprisonment is up to one year and/or a maximum fine of $5,000; for the second and subsequent offenses, the punishment is up to three years imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of $10,000. Heroin occupies a special place in the narcotics laws. It is an illegal drug in the sense that it may not be lawfully imported or manufactured under any circum stances, and it is not available for use in medical practice. Cocaine is considered a narcotic under federal law and its use is prohibited under laws relating to the opiates. The Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act of 1922 lim its the importation of cocoa leaves, from which cocaine is derived. Marijuana. - -Form erly the federal law controlling marijuana was a tax statute, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, enforced by the Bureau of Narcotics. The federal laws relating to m arijuana have since been revised. Under the Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (40:7), possessing or using marijuana is a misdemeanor 43 instead of a felony, and minimum mandatory penalties for such offenses are abolished. However, the penalties rem ain heavy. Possessing or giving away a sm all amount of m arijuana may bring up to one year imprisonment and/or a $5,000 maximum fine. Punishment becomes m ore severe for second and subsequent offenses: up to three years imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of $10,000. Heavy punishment confronts a person of at least eighteen years of age who distributes or sells marijuana to one who is under twenty-one years of age. For a first offense the penalty is im prison ment for up to ten years and/or a $30,000 fine; for second or subse quent offenses, the maximums are fifteen years imprisonment and a fine of $45,000. If a person is under twenty-one on the first offense, he may be placed on probation; and the official record of his a rre st, trial, and conviction may be expunged after satisfactory completion of probation. Persons involved in continual crim inal enterprise face penalties of ten years to life for the first offense, plus a $100,000 fine and forfeiture of profits resulting from the enterprise. A second offense will bring twenty years to life and a $200,000 fine. Dangerous drugs. --Stim ulants, depressants, and hallucino gens are controlled under the Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (44:5). This law controls abuse of the drugs in two ways by regulating the manufacture of the drugs and requiring an accounting 44 for their disposition. All registered m anufacturers, processors, wholesale druggists, pharm acists, hospitals, clinics, public health agencies, and research laboratories m ust keep accurate records of receipts and outflow. No prescription for a controlled drug older than six months can be filled, nor can refills be made more than five tim es in a six-month period. State requirem ents in California were comparably tightened with the passage of Assembly Bill 219 (Camp bell, Fiftieth D istrict) in 1970. In the federal law there are strong penalties for illegal possession and distribution of dangerous drugs. Illegal possession on a first offense brings imprisonment of up to one year and a fine of $5,000. Unlawful distribution of or possession with intent to distribute a barbiturate (with the highest abuse potential) may bring up to five years imprisonment and/or a fine of $15, 000 and a required two-year special parole term for a first offense. Involve ment in a continuing crim inal enterprise carries a penalty of ten years-to-life imprisonment, a maximum fine of $100,000, and fo r feiture of profits and interests in the enterprise. For second and subsequent offenses the penalties are doubled. The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare is author ized under federal law to designate as dangerous drugs those that have a potential for abuse. The penalties for illicit sale or use of 45 these designated drugs are the same as for amphetamines and b a r biturates. The law also provides for the addition of new drugs that may be developed. Acting under this authority, the secretary has designated not only LSD, peyote, and m escaline but also a number of well-known tranquilizers and nonbarbiturate sedatives. Two sub stances used in the manufacture of LSD have also been designated as dangerous because, when either is processed to manufacture LSD, a powerful hallucinogen is created. Volatile intoxicants. --A number of industrial substances are occasionally used for intoxication. Among these are airplane glue, rubber cement, gasoline, and paint thinner. There is no federal legislation expressly directed against intoxicant sniffing; however, California law prohibits inhalation of poison, including glue, for intoxication. California law Existing state legislation on dangerous drugs is far from uniform. Some states have enacted controls that are stricter than those imposed by the federal government. The California drug laws are fairly restrictiv e. The information that follows was obtained from Drug Abuse and the Law, compiled by Evelle Younger, form er district attorney of Los Angeles County and currently California Attorney General (35). 46 Juvenile laws and procedures. - -Persons between eighteen and twenty-one years of age who commit crim es are initially pro cessed as adults. The firs t step is an application for a crim inal complaint with either the d istrict attorney or city attorney. After a complaint has been issued, the judge in adult court can refer the m atter to juvenile court if he believes the case properly belongs there. The juvenile court judge then decides whether to accept or reject the case. If he rejects the case, it is returned to the adult court for trial. Whether the case is tried in juvenile or adult court, the laws relating to m arijuana, narcotics, dangerous drugs, and other drug violations are the same for juveniles as for adults (35). When the minor is under eighteen years old, the proceedings are different. Following his a rre st, the minor is taken to the police station where one of the following three things may happen, depending upon the juvenile’s background, his attitude, and the nature of the offense: 1. The juvenile may be released to his parents with no further action. 2. The juvenile may be released to his parents, but the police agency may apply through the probation depart ment for a petition to the juvenile court. The petition alleges the commission of the offense and is equivalent 47 to the filing of a complaint against the adult. 3. The juvenile may be detained in a juvenile facility, usually called "juvenile hall. " The petition is filed with the probation departm ent as before (35). If the probation departm ent files a petition as requested by the police agency, the juvenile m ust appear at an adjudication hearing before the juvenile court. This hearing is equivalent to an adult trial. The juvenile court judge h ears the evidence and either sustains or dism isses the petition. If the petition is sustained, the m inor’s case is continued for two weeks to allow the probation department to investigate the m inor's background and to prepare a probation report recommending a course of action to the juvenile court. Two weeks later, the minor appears before juvenile court for a disposition hearing, which is equivalent to an adult hearing for probation and sentencing. In a juvenile hearing, however, the court has greater flexibility in the disposition. The four most common dispositions are the following: 1. The minor may be allowed to return home under the supervision of a probation officer. 2. The minor may be sent to a camp maintained by the probation departm ent--for example, a forestry camp. 3. The minor may be committed to the California Youth 48 Authority and sent to one of its facilities. Such facili ties maintain very close supervision of the m inors. 4. If the minor has already been through the above dispo sitions, or a part of them, in a previous case, and if he was over sixteen years of age at the time of the current offense, the court may conclude that he is not amenable to the program s available through the juvenile court. In that case, the juvenile court may order the minor to be tried as an adult (35). Adult laws and procedures. --F o r some drug offenses requiring a minimum term of imprisonment, the judge may still grant probation to the adult; however, the conviction rem ains a felony on the record of the defendant. The term s of probation may include confinement in the county jail. Probation is not available to a person with certain prior convictions or to a person convicted in a case involving a minor victim , nor is probation possible in cases involving narcotics. Appendix I is a chart of the penalties prescribed by the California Health and Safety Code, California Motor Vehicle Code, California Penal Code, and California Business and Professions Code. In general, California laws provide m ore severe penalties for sale of than for possession or use of drugs. Sale of drugs to minors also carries m ore severe penalties. 49 Under section 11530 of the California Health and Safety Code, possession of m arijuana is a felony. Use of, or being under the in fluence of, a narcotic including m arijuana is a misdem eanor. Assemblyman William Campbell introduced Assembly Bill 221 in the 1970 session of the California Legislature to redefine m arijuana as a restricted dangerous drug rath er than a narcotic. No changes in penalties w ere proposed. The bill was passed by the legislature but was vetoed by the governor. California, with other states, still treats m arijuana possession as a felony carrying a minimum sentence of one year in county jail or state prison for a first offense. Drug Abuse Educational and Administrative Practices The information presented in the following paragraphs is not intended as an exhaustive examination of educational and adm inistra tive practices relating to drug abuse. The information is prim arily background for the items that were included in the questionnaires and attitude survey instrum ent described in subsequent chapters. Goals of drug abuse education Richards, in a paper presented to the American Psychologi cal Association, defined good drug abuse education by the elements: reasonable, accurate information conveyed by a psychological 50 principle and designed to change individuals’ knowledge, attitudes, and behavior in a direction desired by the educator. Richards r e ported the three goals of the federal governm ent's educational activities as: 1. To prevent the use of illegal and potentially harmful drugs. 2. To present enough information so students can decide for themselves whether to use drugs. 3. To increase understanding of the factors that account for drug use and related social attitudes. (53:1) Techniques in drug education The various educational approaches to drug abuse, as out lined by Richards, are summ arized in this section. Scare tactics. - -With this method a leaflet, a film, or a lecture is presented to show the hazards of taking drugs (53:8). Often case histories are used to portray the consequences for real persons who abused drugs. Illness, injury, death, or lost opportunities are emphasized. By using these methods, the educator expects that recall of negative reinforcem ent will lead to avoidance of drugs. Richards reported that, contrary to many experts' opinions, the fear approach does "take" with some students, though not with all. Exhortatory. —Many articles, leaflets, lectures, and films are designed for an audience that wants arguments or evidence against the use of drugs (53:11). The purpose in these presentations 51 is not to convince the audience but to supply it with ammunition. Authority. - -Presenting information based on professional or experiential authority is another method (53:12). Since there is much public confusion about drugs, authorities are in g reat demand. There are many kinds of authorities: physicians, legal experts, law enforcement officials, psychologists, and sociologists. All authori ties are not seen as equal, however. High school students, in a study in Michigan, rated nine types of persons for their ability to advise on drugs (53:13). Personal physicians and university "doctors" were at the top of the list; drug users were near the median; and policemen, m inisters, and school counselors were at the low end. These ratings suggest that high school students want advice on the health aspects of drugs more than on the m oral or complications of drug abuse (53:13). Form er drug users or addicts are another source of author ity used in educational program s. In experimental schools where they have been used, there were positive changes in attitude and increased knowledge of drugs (53:13). Richards believed the use of ex-addicts as authorities is important as a technique but needs to be used with caution. It may be one of the few successful methods for attitude change. The value of ex-addicts as teachers was shown in a study by 52 Geis and Morgan and reported by Roberts (53:13). The study was conducted in the Boyle Heights section of Los Angeles, a predom i nantly Mexican-American depressed area with a high incidence of a rre sts. Form er heroin addicts from the area were used as instruc tors in an experiment in classroom instruction and teacher training. Students interviewed later mentioned the ex-addicts as the most worthwhile part of the unit. Teachers voted the ex-addicts as one of the better aspects of their advance training. Status. - - A fourth technique depends on the principle that learning will occur when students are rewarded by increased status. Jordon reported a Coronado, California project in which students con ducted research on drugs and drug use, then transm itted the inform a tion to their peers as student-teachers (23:693). The students' motivation to learn increased with their responsibility for teaching. The same principle operated in a continuing education project for pharm acists in New York conducted by Columbia University (53:16). Pharm acists enrolled in sem inars on drug abuse were trained to speak on the subject when requested by school and community organi zations. The project was successful, both in recruiting pharm acists to the sem inars and in generating requests for speakers. Traditional. --A fifth method of conveying drug abuse knowledge to students is the organization and elaboration of concepts 53 in a logical structure. The MMM health education sequence pro duced by the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company on mood- altering substances fits this category, as do many course guides and outlines (53:16). The traditional method assum es that if students learn a new cognitive structure about drugs, they will be able to draw on it in making decisions and in learning further concepts. A princi ple quite sim ilar to concept attainment has been used in California, initially in an antismoking educational program (20:323). Encounter. --R ichards reported a sixth method that has stimulated interest and engaged the services of a number of psycholo gists in recent years (53:18). This is a collection of group techniques going under the labels of "encounter, " "attitudinal confrontation, " and "sensitivity training. " The common principle of these techniques is that attitudes toward drugs are closely related to one’s feelings of identity and attitudes toward others. Humor. - -Richards mentioned one additional method, although it may not qualify strictly as an educational method (53:19). It is the addition of humor or entertainm ent to the drug abuse m essage. The Professional A rts Company has made a film called "Pot Is a Put On" that provides comic relief from the steady stream of serious facts and opinions. In the film marijuana sm okers are portrayed in unbe lievable and ridiculous poses--as an airline pilot, for example, and 54 as a dentist. This technique is an attempt to deglamorize drug taking and helps the nonusers to feel a bit superior. Richards made the following generalizations about drug abuse education and the various techniques for achieving it: 1. The characteristics of students and audiences must be considered by the educator, or his efforts may m iss the mark badly. 2. Two-sided presentations, elaboration of concepts, role playing, and involvement through encounter groups seem more appropriate for those whose thinking processes are independent and integrative. 3. The higher the intellectual development of a target group, the less likely the fear approach, one-sided argum ents, or authority will accomplish the educa tional purpose. 4. The possibility of using traditional methods to change behavior attitudes of heavy users is practically nil. The best approach with this group is probably involvement in encounter groups or, possibly, role playing. (53:21) California study of drug education The California State Department of Education, in coopera tion with the State Department of Public Health, is conducting a study of m ore effective drug education under a legislative mandate estab lished in chapter 1629 of the statutes of 1967. The information that follows is an abstract of the conclusions presented in the third annual progress report of this research (30:1). These conclusions resulted from a survey of approximately 4,000 students and interviews with individuals and organizations with major responsibilities in drug 55 education. The State Department of Education also reviewed a wide variety of other drug-control activities in school d istricts and com m unities. These were the conclusions: 1. The prim ary function of the school in drug education is the development and implementation of program s that are preventive. 2. Schools must share responsibility with other agencies and organizations for program s that intervene, treat, and rehabilitate. 3. Effective preventive program s of drug education in clude approaches that (a) recognize drug abuse as a symptom and concentrate on the cause; (b) begin at the earliest grade level and present factual inform a tion commensurate with the m aturity of the students; (c) emphasize the individual and his interpersonal relationships; (d) approach drug education as an on going program throughout the school year; and (e) provide behavioral alternatives to drug abuse. 4. Personnel with differing qualifications can be used for instruction. Each situation determ ines the most appropriate qualifications. 5. No one program of drug education [indicates] signifi cantly better results than the others. 6. Trained personnel are needed to provide leadership - in drug abuse education for school districts and com munities. 7. An effective system for the dissemination of drug research data is needed. (30:1) A later progress report required by chapter 1437 of Assembly Bill 2129 of the 1968 session made the following conclusion on drug education in California: The total data available at this time suggest that the role of the school in drug education m ust be considered in two m ajor areas. The first and prim ary function of the school is to provide educational program s that will prevent the m isuse and abuse of drugs. A second responsibility that 56 must be accepted by the school is that of working with the present u sers and present try ers. (30:29) Guidelines for the first area were: 1. Begin drug education at an early level in school. 2. Use a preventive approach throughout the total grade span. 3. Emphasize a total health program with content areas in drug use and m isuse, environmental health, consumer health, and community health (30). Guidelines for the second area were: 1. Provide for cooperative interaction of schools, com munity agencies, and concerned groups. 2. Provide for counseling services, treatm ent centers, and rehabilitation centers. 3. Develop opportunities for behavior alternatives to drug use (30). The progress report also reviewed the efforts being made in drug education at the federal, state, and local levels (30:31). On the state level, the Task Force on Education of the California In ter agency Council on Drug Abuse was appointed by Governor Reagan as his advisory council on drug abuse. The Interagency Council in cluded representatives of agencies and professional organizations directly and indirectly concerned with the need for drug abuse 57 education. This group had been working with the National Action Committee on Drug Education, appointed by the Commissioner of the U. S. Office of Education to provide leadership in program plan ning, development, and evaluation. More concrete assistance was being provided through the National Drug Education Training Program, established by the president in March 1970. This program was supplying funds to the states for the training of school personnel in the fundamentals of drug education. School disciplinary policy While many persons believed that the prim ary function of the school should be in prevention of drug abuse, the schools have had to be concerned with the control of drug abuse as well. The authority of school officials to take disciplinary action has been defined in section 10603 of the Education Code as follows: The governing board of any school d istrict may suspend or expel, and the superintendent of any school d istrict when previously authorized by the governing board may suspend, a pupil whenever it is established to the sa tis faction of the board or the superintendent, respectively, that the pupil has at school or elsewhere used, sold, or been in possession of narcotics or other hallucinogenic drugs or substances, or has inhaled or breathed the fumes of, or ingested any poisons classified as such by Schedule D in Section 4160 of the Business and Professions Code. (33:2) A key provision of the above law is that the superintendent is given the authority to suspend students for drug abuse on or off the 58 school campus; however, the law provides for discretion on the part of the superintendent or board of education. Many d istrict policies and regulations are flexible, providing responses all the way from no disciplinary action to expulsion. The Division of Administrative Services, Attendance and W elfare, of the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools Office commented in its publication, Administrative Guidelines for D iscipli nary Policy Review, that the larger districts were restricting their disciplinary policies to offenses directly connected with the school and were leaving off-campus offenses to law enforcement agencies (33:10). Recommending a flexible policy, the Office of the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools listed as "alternative d is positional efforts" the following: 1. Appropriate counseling by school personnel 2. Consultation between school officials and the student's family 3. R eferral of the student to nonschool agencies, especially if indicated by psychological testing 4. School and class adjustment transfers 5. R eferral to law enforcement agencies 6. Suspension or, as a last reso rt, expulsion 59 The above m easures could be applied either singly or in combination. If officials were to consider expulsion, they were warned to document their prior efforts to correct the student's behavior with other means. The guidelines stressed, finally, that the disciplinary policies and adm inistrative procedures of the schools should emphasize the rehabilitation of the student. Chapter Summary This chapter has presented a review of the literature p e rti nent to the investigation. The review included six m ajor areas: (1) a description of the drugs liable to abuse, (2) drug use patterns, (3) contributing factors to drug abuse, (4) continuing research on drug abuse, (5) the control of drug abuse, and (6) a review of existing drug abuse educational and adm inistrative practices. Drugs of abuse. - -The problem of drug abuse is not a new one. The increased pressures of living in a technological society and the variety and availability of drugs have intensified the problem of drug abuse, however. Many of the commonly abused drugs have a long history of abuse, but some of the m ost potentially dangerous are of recent origin. In this review, drugs were classified as narcotics, m arijuana, dangerous drugs, and volatile intoxicants. Drug use patterns. - -In spite of the interest shown in drug 60 abuse patterns by the m ass media and the polls indicating a rising rate of drug abuse, there have been no nationwide surveys of drug abuse to provide reliable information on the degree of the problem. Most statistics on nationwide use are projections based on police a rre s ts and on lim ited surveys. There is a critical need for sound and comprehensive data. Contributing factors to drug abuse. —Recognizing that drug abuse appears to be only a symptom of other social problems, the investigators reviewed the literature on sociological, psychological, and physiological determ inants. The studies indicated that drug abusers tend to come from deprived social groups and that most users suffer personality maladjustments. All m em bers of deprived groups, however, do not become drug abusers; and the incidence of drug abuse in other social strata has become common. Continuing research . --Studies on contributing factors to drug abuse reflected a lack of scientific information. The federal government is actively supporting further research through the National Institute of Mental Health. Control of drug abuse. - -The most telling drug abuse con trols thus far have been laws effectively enforced. A description of the m ost important federal and California statutes relating to the control of narcotics and dangerous drugs was included in this chapter. 61 Drug abuse educational and adm inistrative practices. --A brief review of the purpose and content of drug education program s was presented. The prim ary function of the school was defined as the development of program s that are preventive. No one program has been shown to produce significantly better results than any other. The California State Department of Education is conducting a study to determ ine which are the m ore effective program s for drug education. Based upon its findings thus far, the Department recommended use of a wide variety of approaches: beginning at an early age, concentrat ing on the causes of abuse, emphasizing the individual and his p er sonal relationships, and approaching the drug education task as a continuing program throughout the school year. Although authorities believed the prim ary function of the school to be prevention of abuse, the schools have had to be con cerned with control. The legal aspects of school disciplinary policy w ere, therefore, included in the chapter. The Education Code pro- vides in section 10603 for the suspension or expulsion of students that have used, sold, or been in possession of dangerous drugs, either on o r off the school grounds. Most authorities agreed that school d isci plinary policies should be flexible in providing for alternative dispo sitions, depending upon the nature of the offense and the probable effect of disciplinary action upon the student's future behavior. 62 The findings from the review of the literature were used in the development of the attitude survey instrum ent employed in this study and described in the following chapter. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES In this chapter the development of the study will be traced from its authorization through the statistical treatm ent of the data that were gathered. The m ajor phases will be discussed separately; these phases are the authorization of the study, endorsement of the study, development of the attitude survey instrum ent, development of the questionnaires, the definition of the sample, the survey procedures and response, and the statistical treatm ent of the data. Authorization of the Study After a prelim inary survey of the literature, discussion with law enforcement officials and other persons well informed on the sub ject of drug abuse, and firsthand experience with numerous instances of drug abuse by students, the investigators concluded that a study of the role of the schools in relation to drug abuse would be most pro ductive if focus were on the attitudes of those persons most im m edi ately involved--the trustees, who were charged with setting school policy relating to drug abuse control efforts; the certificated 63 64 personnel, who were responsible for recommending and then im ple menting the policies; and the students, who were the ultimate subjects of the policies. A rrest statistics and expulsion rates suggested fundamental differences among these groups; however, there was little information on the specific dimensions of these differences and the relationship of these differences to the role of the schools. If an attitude survey instrum ent with the school role as its general subject could be developed, the investigators believed the data generated would provide information that would be of use in the direction of school drug abuse control efforts. The proposal was made, there fore, that the investigators develop an instrum ent and adm inister it to a sample of high school students, certificated personnel, and trustees in ten school districts in Los Angeles County. In addition, the investigators proposed to gather by ques tionnaires information describing the disciplinary, counseling, and educational practices relating to drug abuse in the high school and unified school d istricts in Los Angeles County. The data on drug abuse attitudes would then be compared with drug abuse control p rac tices actually in effect. Several questions were raised when the study was proposed. One concerned the implications of section 10901 of the California Education Code, which stated in part that no survey could be made of 65 students concerning their personal beliefs or family life without first obtaining the written consent of their parents (see Appendix A). It was decided that a survey on drug abuse attitudes would require a legal interpretation of this statute. Another problem was the controversial nature of the subject. Weighed against this was the interest in the subject among school officials and d istrict trustees, an interest that might more than offset the reluctance of some d istricts to participate. The committee chairm en and the investigators concluded that endorsement of the study would be particularly important in influencing districts to participate in the study. Endorsement would not only underscore the interest of the endorsing organization but would also provide evidence of a disinterested evaluation of the pro posal. The proposal was approved, provided endorsement could be obtained and the legal problems could be resolved. Endorsement of the Study To provide a basis for discussion of the legality of the ques tions to be asked the students, the investigators proceeded with the development of the survey instrum ent. The first draft included eighty item s. These were submitted to the Narcotics Bureau of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for reaction to the validity 6 6 and relevance of the item s. The Bureau’s suggestions were incor porated in the instrum ent. The investigators then approached Assemblyman William Campbell, chairm an of the Assembly Subcommittee on Drugs and Alcoholism of the California Legislature, and requested the endorse ment of the Subcommittee for the study. As a result of the interview, Assemblyman Campbell agreed to request an opinion of the Legisla tive Counsel of California regarding the implications of Education Code section 10901 for the study. The opinion of the Counsel is in cluded in Appendix A. With the items to which the Legislative Coun sel objected deleted from the survey instrum ent, the Subcommittee endorsed the study. The letter of endorsement is also included in Appendix A. The investigators also sought the endorsement of the Los Angeles County T rustees Association. The approval of the study by this organization was considered important because participation by trustees would be a vital part of the sample. Endorsement would also require approval by the Los Angeles County Counsel, whose opinion was considered essential to obtaining the participation of the Los Angeles County school districts. The proposal was presented to the Special Projects Committee of the Trustees Association, who referred the attitude survey instrum ent to Mr. James Briggs of the 67 Office of the Los Angeles County Counsel. M r. Briggs’ opinion is included in Appendix B. The item s to which he objected were deleted from the instrum ent, and the T rustees Association then endorsed the study. A letter of endorsement from Dr. Fred Bewley, secretary to the Association, is included in Appendix B. Development of the Attitude Survey Instrument and Questionnaire on Drug Abuse Control Efforts As mentioned above, the first draft of the attitude survey instrum ent had included eighty item s. Several of these item s were deleted or revised at the suggestion of the Sheriff’s Narcotics Bureau. Other items had been deleted because of objections of the Legislative Counsel or the Los Angeles County Counsel. The remaining items were tested in a pilot study consisting of ninety students and thirty adults. The results were factor-analyzed by computer. The analysis reduced the items to six factors, from which several item s were then deleted entirely. The final version of the instrum ent consisted of fifty items; it is included as Appendix C. A questionnaire was constructed to gather information con cerning the disciplinary, counseling, and educational practices relating to drug abuse control in the school districts to be included in the sample. The questionnaire was developed partly from the 6 8 acquaintance of the investigators with the drug abuse education efforts in their own and surrounding school districts, partly from a review of the literature relating to drug abuse education, and partly from m ate rials gathered through participation in the Educational Task Force of Interagency Council on Drug Abuse by one of the investigators. Definition of the Sample The population of trustees was defined as those who were trustees of high school and unified d istricts in Los Angeles County. Ideally, the sample would have included all of the population. The actual response is set forth in the next section of this chapter. The population of certificated personnel was stratified to include the superintendents, district-level adm inistrators, building adm inistrators responsible for discipline, counselors, and teachers of courses including instruction on dangers of drugs in the high school and unified districts of Los Angeles County. The sample ideally would have included the population of superintendents and one of each of the other certificated groups from those d istricts. Several considerations were taken into account in the ulti mate selection of the high schools for sampling from a population composed of the high schools in the suburban attendance areas of Los Angeles County. The schools were to be geographically representa 69 tive of the population of schools. In addition, the schools were to provide a cross section of the socioeconomic conditions in the attend ance areas of the suburban d istricts. The schools were also to be selected by size to include a range typical of the population. One of the problems in obtaining information on the socio economic status of school d istricts was the lack of current published information. The 1970 census data were not yet available. The investigators had hoped that the estim ates of d istrict respondents would be of use, but an examination of the results raised questions as to their reliability. The sources that proved most useful were the publications of Economic Consultants, In c ., describing apartment rental rates (55), and information provided by the Economic Research Division of the Security Pacific National Bank (57). This information was checked against the census data when they became available (58) and was shown to have been reliable as a guide in the selection of the sample schools. Survey Procedures and Response Superintendents of all unified and high school districts in Los Angeles County received the first mailing, which included attitude survey instrum ents for the superintendent and each trustee. An accompanying letter described the purpose of the study and requested 70 the superintendent to complete the form indicating whether his d is tric t would participate. He was also asked to respond to the attitude survey him self and to distribute copies to the trustees. Explanatory letters were enclosed with the survey instrum ents for the trustees. The enclosures to the superintendents and trustees are included as Appendix D. The response to this first mailing is indicated below: Number Per Cent Unified and high school districts in Los Angeles County 47 100.0 Superintendents' responses to attitude surveys (Ten superin tendents referred the survey to another d istrict ad m in istrato r.) 23 48.9 T ru stees' responses to attitude surveys 97 41.3 D istrict boards of trustees represented in the response 37 78.7 Table 1 contains personal data regarding the ninety-seven trustee respondents, and Table 2 presents data regarding the certifi cated respondents. The superintendents were the key to the degree of response. Although many were wholly supportive, others were definitely opposed to their d istric ts’ participation. A third group was interested in the study--for other d istricts. Numerous letters and telephone calls to persons in the latter group were needed in order to secure the above TABLE 1 TRUSTEE a PERSONAL DATA 71 CHILDREN OF SCHOOL AGE Number 0 1 2 3 4+ Percent 32.0 13.4 28.9 13.4 12.4 OCCUPATIONAL CLASS Professional- White Skilled Managerial Collar Trade Housewife Retired Trustee (%) 62.0 14.0 6.0 14.0 4.0 Spouse (%) 21.0 13.0 5.0 61.0 0 TIME AS TRUSTEE Years 1-4 5-8 9-12 13+ Percent 59.8 20.6 14.4 5.2 RESIDENT IN DISTRICT Years 1-8 9-16 17-24 25+ Percent 11.3 38.1 28.9 21.6 AGE Years 21-30 31-40 41 + Percent 0 27.0 73.0 SEX Male Female Percent 82.0 18.0 a N = 97 response. If the superintendent had indicated that his district would participate to some degree, a second mailing was sent to the person designated by the superintendent to receive the material. The TABLE 2 CERTIFICATED STAFF PERSONAL DATA 72 CHILDREN OF SCHOOL AGE (%) Number 0 1 2 3 4+ Supt. 45.0 25.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Dist. Ad. 50.0 18.8 12.5 12.5 6.3 Bldg. Ad. 34.8 13.0 30.4 13.0 8.7 Counselor 31.8 22.7 27.3 13.6 4.5 Teacher 16.7 33.3 22.2 16.7 11.1 TIME IN CURRENT ASSIGNMENT (%) Years 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13+ Supt. 40.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 30.0 Dist. Ad. 56.3 18.8 6.3 12.5 6.3 Bldg. Ad. 73.9 17.4 8.7 0 0 Counselor 40.9 18.2 31.8 4.5 4.5 Teacher 38.9 38.9 11.1 11.1 0 TIME EMPLOYED BY DISTRICT (%) Years 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13+ Supt. 10.0 25.0 15.0 0 50.0 Dist. Ad. 25.0 6.3 6.3 0 62.5 Bldg. Ad. 21.7 8.7 4.3 13.0 52.2 Counselor 18.2 9.1 4.5 36.4 31.8 Teacher 16.7 16.7 27.8 5.6 33.3 AGE (%) Years 21-30 31-40 41+ Supt. 0 5.0 95.0 Dist. Ad. 0 12.5 87.5 Bldg. Ad. 0 39.1 60.9 Counselor 0 45.4 54.6 Teacher 0 66.7 33.3 SEX (%) Group Male Female N Supt. 100.0 0 20 Dist. Ad. 93.8 6.2 16 Bldg. Ad. 95.7 4.3 23 Counselor 66.7 33.3 22 Teacher 88.9 11.1 18 73 recipient was asked to answer a questionnaire on the d istrict's drug abuse disciplinary, educational, and guidance practices. He was also asked to provide the names of three high schools with varying socioeconomic attendance areas in his district. The questionnaires and other enclosures are included as Appendix E. From the schools suggested by the d istrict adm inistrators, twenty-five were selected to receive the third mailing. The princi pals of these schools were requested to complete a brief questionnaire supplying information about their students and attendance areas. They were also asked to distribute envelopes addressed to an admin istrato r responsible for school discipline, a counselor, and a teacher of a course including instruction on the dangers of drugs. The d isci pline adm inistrator received an attitude survey and a questionnaire on disciplinary practices; the counselor received an attitude survey; and the teacher received an attitude survey and a questionnaire relating to instructional practices on drug abuse. The findings from these ques tionnaires are discussed in Chapter V. The questionnaires are shown as Appendix F, along with the cover letters to the principal and three staff respondents. The extent of the response to the second and third mailings follows: 74 Number Per Cent D istricts receiving the second mailing 25 100.0 Responses to questionnaire on drug abuse disciplinary, educa tional, and counseling practices 21 84.0 D istrict adm inistrator responses to the attitude survey in addition to the replies to first mailing 13 52.0 High schools receiving the third mailing 25 100.0 Principal responses 22 88.0 Discipline adm inistrator responses 22 88.0 Counselor responses 22 88.0 Teacher responses 19 76.0 The selection of the student sample was based on the replies of the principals to the third mailing. The information provided by the principal was cross checked against information on rental and house values. Eleven high schools were selected for the student sam ple, described in Table 3, according to the criteria mentioned previously--geographic distribution, range of home values and rental rates, and size of the school. The schools selected were geograph ically representative of the suburban high schools in Los Angeles County. The range of home values was from $15,000 to $50,000. The size of the schools ranged from 1,377 to 2,985 in average daily 75 TABLE 3 PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS IN THE SAMPLE OF ELEVEN SUBURBAN HIGH SCHOOLS High School N Age Sex 15-17 18-20 M F 1 60 98.3% 1.7% 45.0% 55.0% 2 44 97.7 2.3 36.4 63.6 3 65 98.5 1.5 55.4 44.6 4 62 98.4 1.6 38.7 61.3 5 48 91.7 8.3 56.3 43.8 6 72 94.4 5.6 48.6 51.4 7 70 98.6 1.4 67.1 32.9 8 47 89.4 10.6 63.8 36.2 9 61 49.2 50.8 54.1 45.9 10 43 97.7 2.3 51.2 48.8 11 59 100.0 0.0 45.8 54.2 Total 631 92.1 7.9 51.7 48.3 TIME LIVING IN PRESENT HOME Years 0-2 3-4 5-8 9-12 13+ High School 1 35.0% 6.7% 31.7% 15.0% 11.7% 2 18.2 18.2 29.5 13.6 20.5 3 13.8 20.0 29.2 18.5 18.5 4 19.4 22.6 38.7 14.5 4.8 5 31.3 18.8 18.8 14.6 16.7 6 15.3 11.1 31.9 23.6 18.1 7 27.2 8.6 21.4 15.7 27.1 8 19.2 10.6 23.4 14.9 31.9 9 14.7 14.8 16.4 19.7 34.4 10 34.9 16.3 20.9 14.0 14.0 11 13.6 6.8 28.8 20.3 30.5 Total 21.6 13.7 26.8 17.1 20.8 TABLE 3 --Continued 76 PARENTS OR OTHER PRINCIPAL ADULT IN HOME High School Both Parents One Parent Other Relative Non-relative No Response 1 68.3% 28.3% 0.0% 1.7% 1.7% 56.8 31.8 9.1 2.3 0.0 3 73.8 15.4 4.6 1.5 4.7 4 82.3 14.5 0.0 1.6 1.6 5 68.8 29.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 6 84.7 13.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 7 64.3 32.9 0.0 0.0 2.8 8 72.3 23.4 2.1 0.0 2.2 9 63.9 32.8 3.3 0.0 0.0 10 55.8 30.2 4.7 9.3 0.0 11 83.1 15.3 0.0 0.0 1.6 Total 71.3 23.8 2.2 1.3 1.4 Total N = 631 N of individual schools on prior page attendance. Further detail describing these schools is shown in Table 4. Principals of the schools selected for the student sample were asked to schedule two required courses in the eleventh grade. Most of these courses were either United States history or English. If the school grouped these classes by ability level, the principal was asked to include the levels that were average, or as close to average as possible. Eight schools scheduled the classes as requested. Two of the schools scheduled study halls. Another school scheduled a low-average group of seniors in government and an elective senior 77 TABLE 4 SCHOOL AND ATTENDANCE AREA DESCRIPTIVE DATA School Enrollment Racial Composition Percentaee Home Value Range Percentage of Graduates in College White Black Mex. Am. Other ($ 1,000’s) 1 1,600 75 0 22 3 15-35 50 2 2.460 70 1 26 3 20-30 26 3 1,500 54 5 40 1 15-25 10 4 2,300 96 1 2 1 20-40 44 5 2,342 86 1 10 3 15-30 30 6 2.140 85 0 14 1 20-40 25 7 2,500 95 0 5 0 15-35 10 8 2,985 82 2 8 10 25-50 55 9 2,000 48 37 7 8 15-50 23 10 1,377 73 15 1 1 1 15-40 3 11 2,650 87 0 8 5 20-30 12 Median 2,300 82 1 10 2.7 25.4 25 78 course in English. The investigators adm inistered the attitude survey jointly at the first school. An outline was prepared to standardize the intro duction to the survey instrum ent and to explain the purpose of the study. Each of the investigators adm inistered the survey in five of the remaining schools. The survey was adm inistered in May of 1970. Statistical Treatm ent of the Data The student, certificated, and trustee responses were tabu lated and put on punch cards for computer input. Means and standard deviations were computed for each of the groups to be compared. Correlation m atrices were also computed for the student, certificated, and trustee (SCT) groups. Two factor analyses were made of the data, one of the student group alone and one of the combined SCT groups. The program used for factor analysis was the UCLA Bio medical X72, revised November 25, 1968. The computations were done at the University of Southern California Computer Center. The results of the factor analyses are discussed further as the first sec tion of Chapter IV. The overall statem ent that the attitude instrum ent was designed to test was: "The efforts of the schools to reduce drug abuse have been appropriate and effective. " The attitude instrument 79 was w ritten, however, so that a person agreeing with this statement might logically agree with some item s and disagree with others. This was done deliberately as a means of encouraging respondents to con sider each item individually. To simplify the interpretation of the item scores, the investigators converted the scores of those items that had been worded to disagree with the overall statem ent by sub tracting their means from 6.00. With the means "turned around, " it was necessary to revise the wording of those statem ents so the meaning would agree with the conversion. The reworded item s are presented with the others in the section comparing the SCT groups in the following chapter. The reworded parts of the items have been underlined. As a check on the item conversions, the correlation m atrices for die three main respondent groups were rearranged by separating the item s into two groups, each correlating positively with most of the items in its own group and negatively with the items in the other group. The correlations significantly g reater than zero were plotted separately for the SCT groups. Item s 7, 15, 27, and 31 were elim i nated because they did not fall definitely into either item-group. With the elimination of these item s, only 34 exceptions remained among the intercorrelations of the student group, or 4.7 per cent of the 720 item -pair combinations significantly g reater than zero. The certifi- 80 cated group had only 6 exceptions out of 222 combinations, and the trustees had only 8 exceptions out of 296 combinations. The foregoing was done because it was not always apparent from the wording of an item which way it might correlate with another item. Now it was possible to interpret on a scale of agreement - disagreem ent from 1.00 to 5.00 the meaning of each item. To the extent of the common variance of the item, "agreement" meant agree ment with the overall statem ent that the survey had been designed to test. Throughout the discussion of mean group attitudes in the following chapters, the means were interpreted on the scale of agreem ent-disagreem ent as though there had been no "uncertain" category for the respondents to choose. Means below 3. 0 were con sidered in agreement; means above, in disagreem ent. Qualifying term s such as "strongly" and "slightly" had no precise ranges; the actual means were cited where g reater accuracy was needed. Comparison of the SCT groups for each item was done by one-way analysis of variance, allowing for differences in group size (9:280). The one-way analysis by item was also done for several pairs of subgroups--in effect, a t t e s t . To determ ine which of the groups being compared by one-way analysis was significantly differ ent, if any, the Tukey test was perform ed (9:276-277). This test was 81 essentially a t test for significant gap between adjacent means with the means in rank order, using the within-groups mean square as the estim ate of e rro r variance. To test for significant differences among the group means for each factor and for all factors combined, the two-way analysis of variance was used (9:297). The analysis was done without replication because the size of the sm aller sam ples would not perm it replication for each item. This procedure required assumption that the group item means were the best indication of the group response and treated the groups as though they were of equal size. Since the means of the main groups were based upon sam ples ranging from 100 upward in size, the standard e rro r of the mean was sm all and could safely be ignored. In the comparison of sm aller groups, the difference in size was m inor. The main disadvantage of the method was that it provided no basis for separating the interaction variance from the remaining e rro r variance, thereby inflating the e rro r variance and making the F test quite conservative. The advantage of the two-way analysis was that it perm itted the computation of both the between-groups variance and the between- items variance. The between-groups variance showed the extent of group difference with respect to the common variance of the items included in the factor. The between-items variance was used to com- 82 pute intra-item correlation, a m easure of reliability because it indicated the extent to which the groups agreed in their interpreta tions of the items (9:300). The Duncan Range test was applied following the computation of the two-way analysis when m ore than two groups were being com pared. The degrees of freedom were those of the e rro r variance for the two-way analysis. The standard e rro r of the total factor mean was computed from the e rro r variance. The Duncan test provided a m easure of the significance of difference between pairs of group factor m eans, as opposed to the significance of differences overall yielded by the F test (5:136). The procedure just described was applied in the comparison of the factor means for subsidiary groups of the three main SCT groups, except that the one-way analysis was not repeated in every instance. In all instances but one, the Duncan protection level was computed at .05. The exception to the . 05 alpha was made when the certificated subgroups were compared with the larger student and trustee groups in the final comparison of groups. The differences in the size of these groups made the assumption of equal stability of the means tenuous; therefore, the Duncan protection levels were set at the . 01 level. The procedure is described m ore fully in Chapter IV immediately preceding the comparisons of the subgroups. 83 The analysis of variance and Duncan Range tests were used, as with other com parisons, to compare attitudinal means of the schools. The open-ended method of indicating disciplinary expecta tions did not lend itself to param etric testing, however, so the responses were shown as percentages of the sample size and then ranked by school. The Friedm an test was applied to see if the rank ings were random (3:265). Spearman rank-difference correlations were computed to estim ate the relationship of disciplinary expecta tions to school attitudes. The Spearman test was also used to assess the relationship of student data other than attitude to the attitudinal ranking of the schools. Significance of the rho in both applications was m easured against the probability of a correlation significantly ft greater than zero. CHAPTER IV ATTITUDES TOWARD DRUG ABUSE HELD BY STUDENT, CERTIFICATED, AND TRUSTEE GROUPS The first part of this chapter presents the resu lts of the factor analyses referred to in Chapter III. The meaning of each factor is discussed and then condensed into a statem ent expressing the sense of the factor. The next eight sections compare the attitudes of various groups toward drug abuse and the relationship of the schools to the drug abuse problem. These com parisons relate to the hypotheses set down in Chapter I. The reason for making the com parison and its relationship to the main hypotheses are discussed first. The sta tisti cal methods for comparison are described; then the findings are p re sented. In some instances, a sum m ary is included at the end of the section. The last section of the chapter recapitulates the more im por tant findings from the preceding sections. These selected findings are the basis for the conclusions on group attitudes that are reached 84 85 in Chapter VI. The following comparisons of attitudes toward drug abuse are presented, beginning with the second section: 1. Attitudes of student, certificated, and trustee groups 2. Attitudes of respondents by age group 3. Attitudes of adults with and without children of school age 4. Attitudes of the certificated groups 5. Attitudes of students living with both parents and of students other than those with both parents 6. Attitudes of students indicating or not indicating having taken a course including instruction on the dangers of drugs 7. Attitudes of certificated subgroups, selected student groups, and the trustees 8. Attitudes of students by school membership The Factor Analyses and Factor Titles The overall statem ent that the attitude survey instrum ent was designed to test was: The efforts of the schools to reduce drug abuse have been appropriate and effective. 86 This statem ent was not set forth explicitly in the instrument. Instead, the respondents were asked to indicate agreement or d is agreement on a scale of 1.00 to 5. 00 with a series of related state ments (24). Some item s were worded so they would agree with the overall statem ent and others so they would disagree. The procedure for checking the direction of the correlations was described in Chapter III and again in the next section. To determine the relationship of an item to the overall state ment, the investigators made a pilot study of ninety students and thirty adults. The responses were factor-analyzed and reduced to six factors. As a result, some items were revised and others de leted entirely. The revised instrum ent consisted of fifty item s. It is included in Appendix C. The data gathered from the actual sample were factor- analyzed twice m ore, one time using only the student data and the other using the combined student, certificated, and trustee (SCT) data. The student factor analysis included the responses of 631 students from 11 different high schools. Acceptable factor loading was considered to be .40. Five item s--5, 6, 12, 23, and 25--w ere eliminated because they did not load clearly on any factor. Item 17 had only a -.374 loading but was retained because it loaded clearly on Factor E. Four items had already been eliminated because they 87 failed to correlate consistently with other item s and with the overall statem ent. (See Chapter III, discussion of statistical treatm en t.) What remained after the student factor analysis, then, were forty-one item s, each loading on its factor by . 40 or more. The combined SCT data were factor-analyzed as a check to see if inclusion of the certificated and trustee groups would seriously alter the interpretation of the factor loadings, although the group of principal interest was the student group. There was only one signifi cant difference, which is discussed below with the factor descriptions. Factor descriptions Revision of the instrument following the analysis of the pilot study caused little change in the way the item s loaded on factors B, C, and D when the instrum ent was adm inistered to the student sam ple. With Factor E, however, a number of items loaded on Factor A, instead. Factor E had been intended to include item s relating to the dangers of experimentation with marijuana (items 19, 20, and 21), the risk of heroin addiction from drug use (items 38 and 40), the dangers of amphetamines and barbiturates (items 10, 17, 22, and 24), and the danger of using LSD (Item 23). Only item s 10, 17, 22, and 24 loaded as expected. These items referred only to "drugs, " while all but one of the others contained the term s "marijuana, " "heroin, " or "addiction. " 88 Factor F also failed to load as expected. Items 5-9, 11, 12, and 15 had been included to test attitudes toward possible motives for drug experimentation, as stated in the original hypotheses and con firm ed in the pilot study. The intended items either loaded on other factors or were not significantly high to meet the minimum loading of .40 established as a cutoff point. In their place, item s 36, 37, and 50 emerged as Factor F. All of these items related to the punish ment of drug sellers. The only serious alteration of the factor loadings for the combined SCT data was also with Factor F. With the combined group, items 37 and 50 shifted to Factor A and were replaced by item s 43 and 44, both relating to off-campus offenses. Item 36 dropped below . 40 loading. In subsequent comparisons of groups, Factor F was regarded as a specialized part of Factor A, although it was retained separately as a factor because of its special interest in student comparisons. In a sense, Factor A seemed to dominate the results of the group com parisons. The Combined Factors results were always sim ilar. Part of the reason was die number of item s, seventeen, in Factor A. A more important reason was that Factor A, and all other factors, had a common variance and were correlating with the over all statem ent. In other words, the independence of the factors was 89 not distinct, although in referring to them by title in subsequent com parisons there was that implication. According to Dr. William B . Michael, it is characteristic of factor analyses that the first factor seems to dominate because it is the strongest expression of the com mon variance (56). The general subject of Factor A was the propriety of various legal and disciplinary m easures as they applied to defined situations. Attitudes toward propriety were highly correlated with attitudes to ward the use of the m ore common, and controversial, drugs and narcotics. A person who believed that marijuana is a threat to society, for instance, tended to favor m ore severe legal and discipli nary m easures counter to its use. Factor A related to the "appro priate" part of the m easures that the schools have taken in their efforts to control drug abuse. Factor B related to the "effective" aspect of m easures that the schools have taken. As a factor, it was considerably weaker than Factor A, but among its nine item s, several were individually strong in showing significant differences among groups with respect to specific m easures. Possibly because of the diversity of the m easures included, Factor B showed a lower reliability than Factor A consist ently. Factor C concerned the extent of the problem of drug abuse 90 among students. Respondents had been asked to estim ate the rates of experim ental, occasional, frequent, and daily use of drugs by students. Factor C was the most independent of the factors in its correlation with other factors, although it did correlate positively with the common factor for m ost groups. Factor D considered the question of responsibility of drug abuse. The common thread of the items was the question of who is to blam e--the individual or society. Factor E still related to the dangers of drug abuse, even after the desertion of the more controversial items to Factor A. The remaining item s were the more factual ones; however, a respondent not fam iliar with the topic of the item might have responded in term s of his overall attitudes. Factor F, as discussed above, dealt with the relative gravity of drug selling compared to the use or possession of drugs. Combined Factors was a composite of the other factors. As such, its resu lts w ere a reflection of the weighting of the factors to some degree, but the weight of a factor in a comparison of groups was proportionate to the communality of its items for the responses of the particular groups being compared: system atic disagreement between groups could result in overall significance of difference, where differences within factors were not sufficient to be significant. 91 As a composite, Combined Factors was interpreted to reflect a tti tudes toward the overall statement: whether the efforts of the schools to control drug abuse had been appropriate and effective. Factor titles The following sentences express the sense of the six factors. Each is coupled with an abbreviation that will be used to title the factor in the comparisons to be made. Factor A. --Law enforcement and school disciplinary d eter rents to drug abuse have been appropriate; briefly, "Propriety of D eterrents. ” F actor B. - -Efforts to control drug abuse among students have been effective; briefly, "Effectiveness of Control Efforts. " Factor C. - -The extent of drug abuse among students has been minimal; briefly, "Extent of Abuse. " Factor D. - -An individual is responsible for his decision to use drugs; briefly, "Individual Responsibility. " Factor E . - -Drug abuse is dangerous to the abuser; briefly, "Dangers of Drug Abuse. " Factor F . --Drug sellers should be punished m ore severely than drug users; briefly, "Punishment of Sellers. ” 92 Attitudes of the Student, Certificated, and T rustee Groups The com parisons presented in this section were made by one-way analysis of variance (comparing group item means for over all differences on individual items); by the Tukey test for continuity of means (comparing adjacent item means for significant separation); by the two-way analysis of variance without replication (comparing group factor means); and by the New Duncan Range test (comparing factor means following the two-way analysis of variance). All were discussed in Chapter III. With the statistical findings for the student, certificated, and trustee groups that follow, all of the item statem ents are included, whether or not there were significant differences in the group mean responses. The item s have been reworded, when necessary, to reflect the changes in meaning that were produced by conversion of the item means as described in Chapter III. Reworded parts of the item are denoted by underlining. In subsequent comparisons the item -statem ents will not be repeated, but the findings will be sum m arized in tables when analysis by separate items was done. The m eans, standard deviations, and F-ratio significance are shown for each item. Actual F significance is indicated if the probability was .25 or less; however, only probabilities of . 05 or 93 less were considered significant. Where the Tukey test showed the separation of means to be insignificant, the means are connected by continuous underscoring. Where the separation was significant with a probability of . 05 or . 01, the probability is indicated. Factor A: Propriety of D eterrents Item F Significance 47. The schools have been too easy on teenage drug offenders. C T S M 3.337 3.134 3.108 NS SD 1.275 1.151 1.311 49. A student who has been found with drugs in his possession or under the influence of drugs on the school grounds should be expelled from school for at least one year. C S T M 3.980 3.772 3.628 .25 SD 1.265 1.367 1.356 43. School authorities should take disciplinary action against students who have been found guilty of possession of drugs off the school campus. M 3.685 2.950 2.268 SD 1.413 Q 1 1.403 Q 1 1.366 .001 94 Item 46. Students known to be involved in the use or sale of drugs away from the school should not be allowed to continue at their school as regular students. S C T M 3.138 2.297 1.897 SD 1.463 Q 1 1.308 Q 5 1.220 44. School authorities should not postpone action in the case of a student accused of violating a drug law until after the court has made a decision on his case. S C T M 3.788 3.059 2.722 SD 1.267 Q 1 1.475________ 1.498 35. The penalties for use, possession, or sale of drugs should be more severe. S C T M 2.844 2.822 2.722 SD 1.529______1.307________ 1.539 41. Laws dealing with the use of drugs and m ari juana are not too severe. S C T M 2.677 2.594 2.124 SD 1.474______1.387 Q 5 1.333 F Significance .001 .001 NS .005 39. A person who m isuses drugs should be found out by the authorities as soon as possible. 95 Item F Significance S C T M 2.550 1.802 1.670 . 001 SD 1-403 Q 1 .959_______ .987 42. Police should report drug offenders to the schools. M 2.818 1.454 1.287 .001 SD 1.478 Q . 890______ 1.042 45. School officials should refer drug offenders to the police. S C T M 2.661 1.911 1.629 .001 SD 1.455 Q 1 1.087________.993 19. There is a significant danger to one's health in using m arijuana. M 3.334 2.861 2.680 .001 SD 1.460_ _ Q 1 1.158_______1.195 20. A person who has used marijuana many tim es needs more to get 'high" than a person who is using it for the firs t time. M 2.851 2.840 2.691 NS SD 1.299 1.571 1.269 96 Item F Significance 21. Using marijuana often leads to the use of other drugs or narcotics. S C T M 2.475 2.020 1.907 . 001 SD 1.382 Q 1 1.049______________ .936 38. A person who starts experimenting with drugs usually goes on to stronger stuff like heroin. C S T M 3.188 3.019 2.814 .25 SD 1.138 1.477 1.210 40. Medical doctors should not be allowed to prescribe drugs for addicts. M 3.188 3.072 2.786 .025 SD 1.032 1.277 1.477 9. Drugs do not help a person to understand him self better. S T C M 1.967 1.175 1.158 .001 SD 1.197___Q 1 .500_______ .441 11. LSD does not help people to understand and create better than they could otherwise. S T C M 1.881 1.258 1.168 .001 SD 1.128 Q 1 .696_______ .511 97 Factor B : Effectiveness of Control Efforts Item F Significance 16. The best way to keep persons from using drugs is to inform them about the way drugs can affect their health. C S T M 2.693 2.576 2.155 .025 SD 1.120_______ 1.298 Q 1 .950 26. If a student knows a lot about the effect drugs will have on him , he will probably not use dangerous drugs. S C T M 2.868 2.663 2.268 .001 SD 1.212_______ 1.042 Q 5 .974 18. Medical doctors are better qualified to teach about the harm ful effects of drugs than ex addicts are. S C T M 3.891 3.297 3.196 .001 SD 1.193 Q 1 1.245_____________ 1.178 13. Counseling by a psychologist would lead most drug users to stop using drugs. C S T ' M 3.485 3.325 3.278 NS SD 1.092_______ 1.094________ .997 14. A student who is active in school affairs will probably not experiment with drugs. 98 Item S C T M 3.234 2.960 2.505 SD______ 1.379______ 1.272 Q 5 1.072 48. When school officials "crack down, " students will not risk selling or using drugs at school. C T S M 3.386 3.175 2.925 SD______1.200______ 1.190_______ 1.334 33. If a person knows about the laws against drug possession and use, he probably will not risk using drugs. C S T M 3.881 3.846 3.670 SD .983_______1.075_______ 1.048 32. Most people who use or sell drugs illegally are eventually caught. C T S M 3.673 3.423 2.784 SD 1.011______ 1.180 Q 1 1.204 34. Strict enforcement of drug laws would greatly reduce m isuse of drugs. S C T M 3.266 2.911 2.649 SD 1.355 Q 5 1.242_____________ 1.323 F Significance .001 .005 NS .001 .001 99 Factor C: Extent of Abuse These items called for estim ation of the extent of drug abuse as follows: (a) One out of twenty (b) One out of ten (c) One out of five (d) One out of three (e) One out of two Item 1. F Significance What proportion of the students in high school do you estim ate have experimented with dangerous drugs at least once? M SD 3.260 1.163 3.137 1.228 3.053 1.265 NS 2. What proportion of the students in high school do you estim ate use dangerous drugs once or twice a month? M 2.441 2.000 1.800 .001 SD 1.178 Q 1 .927_______ .878 3. What proportion of the students in high school do you estim ate use dangerous drugs once or twice a week? S T C M 2.062 1.432 1.390 .001 SD 1.160___Q 1 .803________.615 4. What proportion of students in high school do you estim ate use drugs daily? 100 F Significance M 1.686 1.157 1.100 .001 SD 1.122 Q 1 .586________.458 Factor D: Individual Responsibility Item 8. Persons who use dangerous drugs usually had "hangups" before they started with drugs. S T C M 2.445 1.948 1.861 .001 SD 1.300 Q 1 1.064________ .928 28. Drug u sers often use drugs as a way of p ro testing against the problems in our society. M 2.650 2.526 2.366 .10 SD 1.204 1.191 1.007 29. Adults who strongly oppose the m isuse of drugs probably do understand the problems of young people today. S C T M 3.225 2.396 2.237 .001 SD 1.331 Q 1 1.304______ 1.344 30. If adults didn't "bug" them, teenagers probably would misuse drugs just as much. M 2.870 2.188 1.959 . 001 SD 1.284___Q 1 1.065_______1.030 101 Factor E: Dangers of Drug Abuse Item F Significance 10. A person who has tried drugs once is more likely to take drugs the next chance he gets than a person who has never tried drugs. M 2.288 2.124 1.950 .025 SD 1.161 1.166 .942 24. A person buying drugs from a pusher cannot know for sure what the drug is o r how strong it is. M 1.734 1.165 1.089 .001 SD 1.050 Q 1 .534_______ .449 22. A person who m isuses drugs regularly is more likely to catch colds and other diseases than a person who does not m isuse drugs. M 2.787 2.36 1 2.109 . 001 SD 1.066_ _ Q 1.022________.893 17. Frequent users of "reds" (barbiturates) become very ill when they try to stop using this drug. M 2.825 2.637 2.624 NS SD 1.021 1.236 1.333 102 Factor F: Punishment of Sellers Item F Significance 50. A student who has been caught selling drugs on the school grounds should be expelled from school for at least one year. M 3.009 2.515 2.124 . 001 SD 1.549 Q 1 1.514_____________ 1.445 37. F ar fewer teenagers would push drugs if they were punished as severely as adults when they were caught. S C T M 2.634 2.416 2.186 .005 SD 1.274 1.243 1.261 36. The punishment for a drug pusher should be more severe than for a person who possesses or uses drugs. S C T M 2.111 1.317 1.196 .001 SD 1.320___ Q 1 .774________.589 Since each of the item responses contained variance related specifically to the item, variance common to other items in the factor, and e rro r variance, factor significance was not necessarily dependent upon the item s' significance in the factor, although there might be a close relationship in some instances. Table 5 sum m arizes the group differences for each factor and for all factors combined. 103 TABLE 5 FACTOR SIGNIFICANCE, FACTOR RELIABILITY (Rkk), AND GROUP DIFFERENCES FOR STUDENT, CERTIFICATED, AND TRUSTEE GROUPS Factor F-Ratio Significance & Rkk from Two-way Analysis Factor Means and New Duncan Range Homogeneous Sets of Means at .05 Protection Level a All Significance Rkk .001 .938 Trustee Certificated Student 2.325 2.488 2.823 A Significance Rkk .001 .927 Trustee Certificated Student 2.285 2.498 2.905 B Significance Rkk .10 .861 Trustee Student Certificated 2.924 3.191 3.216 C Significance Rkk .10 .975 Trustee Certificated Student 1.882 1.938 2.311 D Significance Rkk .01 .747 Trustee Certificated Student 2.168 2.203 2.798 E Significance Rkk .10 .966 Certificated Trustee Student 1.943 2.119 2.362 F Significance Rkk .025 .969 Trustee Certificated Student 1.835 2.083 2.585 a Means coupled by underscoring have a probability greater than .05 of being a homogeneous set with respect to the factor. Means not coupled by underscoring differ from each other by a range whose protection level indicates less than .05 probability that the means are members of a homogeneous set with respect to the factor. 104 Means indicated as homogeneous by the Duncan Range test are coupled by continuous underscoring. Means not coupled by continuous under scoring are significantly different. Discussion of factor results The foregoing data and the information sum m arized in Table 5 are discussed in the following paragraphs. Factor A: Propriety of D eterrents. --O verall factor differ ences among group means showed a significance of . 001 on the F test. Trustees and certificated were a homogeneous set on the Duncan Range test. Reliability of the F test was . 927. The extrem ely sig nificant F ratio was due to the differences of students from the other two groups in their attitude toward the propriety of punishment by the schools and the courts as a deterrent to drug abuse. Examination of the results for individual item s indicated areas of specific differences. Neither Item 47 nor Item 49 was sig nificant. All groups tended to disagree slightly that the schools had been too easy on drug offenders (Item 47). No group favored severe punishment for on-campus possession (Item 49). Certificated were most opposed, with a mean of 3.980. Items 43, 46, and 44 considered whether the school should intervene in off-campus drug offenses. The F test of . 001 for all three items was extrem ely significant; m oreover, adjacent group 105 means differed significantly at . 01 from each other. T rustees definitely favored intervention in possession cases; certificated divided about equally; and students definitely opposed school action. Unlike Item 43, Item 46 related to the selling of drugs off campus; consequently, all three groups were more in favor of intervention by the school. With an overall F ratio of . 001 significance, the students were still slightly opposed; certificated were in favor. The differ ence between them was significant at the . 01 level. T rustees were most in favor; the difference between certificated and trustees had . 05 significance. On Item 44 students were significantly more opposed to school action prior to a court decision, but trustees and certificated were not significantly different. Certificated were slightly opposed, trustees were slightly in favor. There were no significant differences among groups on whether the drug laws should be m ore severe (Item 35). All were in slight agreem ent. On Item 41, with an F of . 005, trustees agreed significantly (.05) more than the other groups that the laws are not too severe. With an F of . 001 on items 39, 42, and 45--which related to the discovery of drug offenders and cooperation between the schools and police--the students tended to agree, but agreed significantly (.01) less as a group than certificated and trustees did. The latter 106 groups both supported cooperation and did not differ significantly. There was disagreem ent among groups on the dangers of m arijuana (Item 19); students disagreed slightly that there is danger and w ere significantly (. 01) less convinced than certificated, who tended to agree with the item. T rustees agreed most. All groups concurred that experimentation with m arijuana could lead to other drugs (Item 21); but, again, students agreed significantly (.01) less than the other two groups. On items 19 and 21 the certificated and trustees did not differ significantly. F significance on both items was . 001. Item 20 considered whether m arijuana is physically addictive: all groups agreed somewhat; no significant differences existed among groups. Both certificated and students were dubious as to whether experimenting leads to hard drugs (Item 38). Trustees thought it might, but there were no significant differences among groups. For Item 40 there was significant difference between students and certificated groups with an F of . 025, but there was no significant difference between trustees and either group. Certificated and trustees agreed slightly that medical doctors should be allowed to prescribe drugs for addicts. Students did not favor the proposal. The three groups agreed strongly that claim s for the benefits of LSD are unfounded (items 9 and 11); however, students were 107 significantly (.01) less in agreement than trustees and certificated. T rustees and certificated were not significantly different. Both items had an overall F significance of . 001. Factor B : Effectiveness of Control Efforts. - -The common thread to Factor B was whether students will refrain from drug abuse if they are aware of the consequences. Making students "aware" was interpreted by the investigators to include disciplinary policy and law enforcement, as well as instruction and counseling. The F ratio for this factor was not significant overall, with a probability of . 10 of having the differences in factor means due to chance. The Duncan Range test showed significant difference between certificated and trustees, the extreme means, but the insignificant F discounted the importance of the difference. The reliability was . 861, indicating an inconsistency in the group interpretations of the item s. Seven of the nine item s in Factor B, however, showed signifi cant differences individually. On items 16 (F of . 025) and 26 (F of .001) the trustees expressed significantly more faith in the value of information as a means of deterring drug abuse than did the other groups; nevertheless, all three groups were in the agreement range. There was no significant difference between certificated and student means on either item, but trustees were separated from the nearest 108 group by a gap significant at . 01 on Item 16 and . 05 on Item 26. Students disagreed significantly (.01) more than the ce rtifi cated and trustees on Item 18 that medical doctors are better qualified than ex-addicts to teach about the harmful effects of drugs. The over all F ratio showed . 001 significance. All groups tended to disagree with Item 13 that counseling would stop a drug user from using drugs. The F was insignificant. With a mean of 2.505, trustees were significantly (. 05) more convinced that students active in school affairs would not experiment with drugs (Item 14). Students had a mean of 3.234; and certificated, a mean of 2.960. Certificated and students were not significantly different. Overall F significance was . 001. Certificated and trustees did not think strict school disci pline effective in preventing student drug use at school (Item 48). Students, however, narrowly agreed that it was. Only the extrem es were significantly different with an F of . 005. With no significant differences among groups, all three disagreed that knowledge of drug laws would deter a potential drug user (Item 33). On Item 32, with an overall significance of . 001 and a gap significance of .01, students believed significantly m ore than trustees and certificated that drug violators would eventually be caught, yet indicated on Item 34, with . 001 overall significance and a gap significance of . 05, that strict 109 enforcement of the law would not greatly reduce drug abuse. Factor C: Extent of Abuse. —As with Factor B, the F ratio for difference between group means had a probability of . 10 and was not significant. Unlike Factor B, the reliability of .975 indicated considerable stability in the groups' estim ations of drug abuse rates. The F ratio of 4. 45, too, was closer to the required . 05 significance. For these reasons, m ore importance was attached to the indication of . 05 significant difference between trustees and students on the Duncan Range test. As the item results below will indicate, some basis existed for generalization about Factor C. Item 1 called for an estim ation of the rate of experimental use of drugs. The F test was not significant. All groups estim ated about 20 per cent. No significant gaps were present in the group means. Item 2 called for an estim ation of occasional use. The F significance was . 001. Students were above the certificated with a gap of . 01 significance between their means. The student estim ate was a rate of 14 per cent. The certificated estim ate was 10 per cent, and the trustee estim ate was 9 per cent. Item 3 asked for an estim ate of frequent use. The F was . 001 for overall difference. Again the students had a gap significant at . 01, but this time between them selves and the trustees. Students 1 1 0 estim ated about 11 per cent abuse rate; the trustees, slightly above 7 per cent; and the certificated, slightly below 7 per cent. Item 4 considered the rate of daily use. Students estimated significantly (.01) above trustees. Overall significance among groups was .001. The student estim ate was 8.43 per cent; the tru stees, 5.78 per cent; and the certificated, 5.50 per cent. In the case of the trustees and certificated, though, the lower end of the range was severely restricted . Factor D: Individual Responsibility. - -This factor was con cerned with the issue of who is to blame for the drug abuse problem, whether the drug abuser is a victim of social p ressures, neurosis, the generation gap- -or whether he makes a conscious choice to use drugs for hedonistic, spiteful, or other personal, but discretionary, reaso n s, The factor F test showed a difference significant at . 01. The Duncan test indicated homogeneity between trustees and certifi - cated and a significant difference between both groups and the stu dents. The F test was significant despite a low reliability of . 747. The groups did not react consistently to the item s, so generalization from the factor results to the population would be restricted. Items 8, 29, and 30 individually had F significance of . 001. On all three the students agreed significantly less (. 01) with the I l l statem ents than the certificated and trustees. Students agreed on Item 8 that persons who abuse drugs had problems prior to their use of drugs. Students tended on Item 29 to attribute adult opposition to drug use to lack of adult understanding. On Item 30 students agreed somewhat, but significantly less than adults, that friction between the generations was not an important cause of drug abuse. Only Item 28 was insignificant; no group believed that social protest was a frequent motive for taking drugs. T rustees and certificated did not differ significantly on any item. Students as a group on Factor D did not support the argument that drug abuse is a symptom of social unrest, yet enough thought so to set the group apart from the certificated and trustees. Factor E: Dangers of Drug Abuse. - -The F ratio for Factor E was not significant. The Duncan test revealed a significant differ ence between only the certificated and students, the two extrem es. Reliability of the m easure was . 966. Three of the four item s had significant F results. Item 10, with an F of . 025 significance, did not indicate significant gaps in the means on the Tukey test; so the difference was between the student and certificated groups at the extrem es. The students agreed, but significantly less, that an experim enter with drugs is more likely to use drugs at the next opportunity than a person who has never tried 1 1 2 drugs. On Item 24 students concurred, but again significantly less, that buying drugs from a pusher is risky. On Item 22, concerning the effect of regular drug use on the u s e r’s physical condition, their mean was significantly apart from the other groups; however, the students were less im pressed with the danger than on items 10 and 24. For both items 24 and 22 the F significance was . 001. On none of the item s were the attitudes of the trustees and certificated signifi cantly different. Item 17 did not reveal a difference among group attitudes. None of the groups was, as a group, certain about the addictive prop erties of one of the drugs most commonly abused by students. Factor F: Punishment of S ellers. - -In an earlier discussion of the factor analysis, Factor F was described as a subsidiary of Factor A for a special kind of drug offense. The F significance for the factor was . 025. The trustees and certificated were homogene ous. The students were significantly apart from both in the degree of agreement; however, even the students agreed that drug selling deserves m ore serious punishment than drug using. F ratios of all three item s were significant. Item 50, with an F significant at . 001, showed students evenly divided as to whether pushers should be punished m ore severely. T rustees as a group agreed with expulsion for one year for selling on campus. The 113 certificated group, between the two other groups, was significantly (. 01) apart from students and not significantly different from trustees. On Item 37, a more hypothetical issue, all three groups agreed that severe punishment would lim it drug selling. The F test was significant at . 005, but the difference was only between students and trustees. Certificated, again in the middle, were not significant ly different from either. Item 36 returned to the relative gravity of drug selling as opposed to drug using. H ere the students differed significantly (. 01) from the other two groups. The F significance was .001 for differ ences among all groups. N evertheless, even the students strongly agreed that the punishment of a drug seller should be m ore severe than that for a drug user. Combined F acto rs. --T rustee, certificated, and student groups all differed significantly from each other when all factor items were combined. Overall F significance was . 001. The difference between trustee and certificated means was significant at the . 02 protection level on the Duncan test. The trustees differed significant ly from certificated on the Combined F actors, and not on separate factors, because of system atic differences in their item means. The certificated agreed m ore than the trustees with only eleven of the forty-one item s. Four of these items were concentrated in Factor E, 114 which was the only factor where the certificated mean was sm aller than the trustee mean. The difference of the student mean from the trustee and certificated means was significant at the . 001 protection level. R eli ability of the F test was .938, an indication that the results were representative of the population of students, certificated, and trustees. Attitudes of Respondent Age Groups Comparisons among the student, certificated, and trustee groups in the previous section assumed a set of attitudes associated with those groups. The question investigated in this section, and later in the conclusions of the last chapter, is whether the differences among the SCT groups might not have arisen from age differences as well as from the respondents' group m em berships. This question is also the subject of the second main hypothesis. Certificated and trustees had been requested to indicate on their answer sheets whether their ages were between twenty-one and thirty, between thirty-one and forty, or above forty years. Students had been asked to indicate their actual ages. As it happened, there w ere no respondents in the adult group who fell in the twenty-one to thirty age grouping. Within the other groups, 57 were between 115 thirty-one and forty; the remaining 132 were forty-one and above. Students were categorized in two age groups: those between fifteen and seventeen years old, and those between eighteen and twenty. It was recognized that this choice of class interval might result in an unequal division of the sample. Because the sample was taken late in the school year from a group consisting mainly of eleventh-grade students, it was assumed that the greater number of these students would be seventeen years old or above. To include the seventeen-year-olds in the upper age group would have concealed differences that might exist among the older, more sophisticated students by submerging them in the grouping that was expected to in clude the g reater part of the sample. As it turned out, the division was more radical than expected: only fifty students in the sample fell in the older group. Even so, a sample of fifty might be expected to have a reasonably stable mean, so the investigators decided to make the comparison between those seventeen and younger and those eighteen and older. The statistical methods used were the two-way analysis of variance, the New Duncan Range test, and the intra-item correlation of average response described in the previous section for the com parison of the student, certificated, and trustee groups. The results discussed in the paragraphs below are summ arized in Table 6. 116 TABLE 6 FACTOR SIGNIFICANCE, FACTOR RELIABILITY (R j^), AND GROUP DIFFERENCES FOR RESPONDENT AGE GROUPS Factor F-Ratio Significance & Rkk from Two-way Analysis Factor Means and New Duncan Range Homogeneous Sets of Means at .05 Protection Level a All 41+ . 31-40 15-17 18-20 Significance Rkk .001 .947 2.362 2.471 2.801 3.041 A 41+ 31-40 15-17 18-20 Significance Rkk .001 .946 2.383 2.441 2.875 3.211 B 41+ 31-40 15-17 18-20 Significance Rkk .25 .894 3.048 3.135 3.175 3.351 C 41 + 31-40 15-17 18-20 Significance Rkk .025 .963 1.688 2.120 2.279 2.560 D 41+ 31-40 15-17 18-20 Significance Rkk .001 .870 2.157 2.184 2.777 3.025 E 41+ 31-40 18-20 15-17 Significance Rkk .25 .957 2.032 2.055 2.315 2.364 F 41+ 31-40 15-17 18-20 Significance Rkk .01 .946 1.800 2.058 2.568 2.780 a Means coupled by underscoring have a probability greater than .05 of being a homogeneous set with respect to the factor. Means not coupled by underscoring differ from each other by a range whose protection level indicates less than .05 probability that the means are members of a homogeneous set with respect to the factor. 117 Factor A: Propriety of D eterrents. - -The F test for between- groups differences of means was extrem ely significant at . 001. The Duncan test showed that the adult groups were homogeneous, but that the student groups were significantly different from adults and from each other. The reliability of the F was .946. The significant differ ences by age were identical to those differences that had been shown between adults and students on the SCT comparison; however, on that comparison the students had been assumed to be a homogeneous group. Factor B: Effectiveness of Control Efforts. - -Two-way analysis of variance revealed no significant differences among age groups. The reliability was . 894. The Duncan test indicated homo geneity between all but the extrem e groups, those forty-one or over and those between eighteen and twenty. Adult groups were most in agreement, but not significantly m ore than the younger student group. Unlike the SCT comparison, the adult groups were not separated by the students. F urther, all trustees were no longer significantly different from the younger student group. Factor C: Extent of Abuse. - -The F test for this factor showed significant difference between age groups of . 025. Adults and students were homogeneous within their respective groups; however, in addition the younger adult group was also homogeneous with both student groups. The older adult group was significantly different 118 from both student groups, where the certificated on the SCT com pari son had been homogeneous with the students. Factor D: Individual Responsibility. - -The F results of age comparison were .001, even m ore significant than the differences among the SCT groups. The adult groups and student groups were mutually exclusive on the Duncan test but were homogeneous within their respective adult and student age groupings. The reliability of the F test increased to .870 from the . 747 of the SCT comparison. Aside from the increased F significance and increased reliability, the results for age comparison and SCT comparison were identical. Factor E: Dangers of Drug Abuse. --Age differences on Factor E were not significant on the F test. The reliability of . 957 excluded the possibility that the lack of significance was due to an inflated e rro r variance from interaction. The Duncan test also showed all age groups to be homogeneous. With the SCT comparison, the certificated had been significantly different from the students on the Duncan test. Factor F: Punishment of S ellers. - -The F test for this factor was significant at .01. The Duncan test showed the adult and student groups to be mutually exclusive. Adults and students were homogene ous within their respective groups. The reliability of the F test was .946. The results, as with Factor A, did not contradict the results 119 of the SCT comparison. Combined F acto rs. - -Age comparisons for all factors com bined were extrem ely significant at . 001. The adult groups were homogeneous on the Duncan test; student groups were significantly different from adults and from each other. Reliability of the F test was .947. The significant difference between trustees and certifi cated on the SCT comparison had been eliminated. The assumed homogeneity of the students on the SCT comparison did not carry through into the age comparison. Attitudes of Adults with and without School-Age Children The third main hypothesis posed the question of whether having children of school age might significantly influence the attitudes of the respondents. The statistical method used for comparison was the t test of correlated means. This method is sim ilar to the two-way analysis of variance without replication, except that it does not yield a m easure of intra-item correlation. If the results had warranted, further testing was intended. Only factors C and F showed significant difference between these two groups. With Factor C, the significance was . 05. The adults with children estim ated a higher rate of drug abuse among students. On Factor F the difference was significant at the . 01 level. 1 2 0 The adults with children favored more severe punishment of drug sellers. There was no significant difference on factors A, B, D, E, and combined. Since the test for significance on Combined Factors fell considerably short of significance, no further statistical com parisons were made. Attitudes of Certificated Groups The fourth main hypothesis considered whether certificated respondents might vary in their attitudes toward drug abuse. Each of the certificated groups selected for the sample had responsibilities that could, it was hypothesized, influence their attitudes toward the role of the school in attempting to control drug abuse. If there were significant differences among the attitudes of these groups, treating them as homogeneous for comparison with trustees and students could lead to erroneous conclusions. Further, these groups had been intimately involved with the development and implementation of drug abuse control program s in their districts. Certificated attitudes toward the role of the school could not help but have influenced the direction and emphasis of their d istricts' efforts. The statistical methods used for comparison of the ce rtifi cated groups were the same as those used for comparison of the age groups and the SCT groups. That is, the two-way analysis of v a ri 1 2 1 ance was used to compare the attitudinal means of each group by factor and for all factors combined. The Duncan Range test was made to determ ine significance of differences among the factor means of the groups. Intra-item correlations were computed to assess the presence of interaction variance and to estim ate the reliability of the F test. The findings from these comparisons are summarized in Table 7. Factor A: Propriety of D eterrents. - -The F test for this factor showed a significant difference among group means of . 005. These differences were shown by the Duncan Range test to be between the building adm inistrators and teachers, on the one hand, and be tween the counselors and d istrict adm inistrators on the other. Build ing adm inistrators and teachers had means significantly more favor able toward the items in Factor A. The reliability of the F test was . 964. The means of all four groups were in the agreement range of response--i. e . , none of the groups was opposed to the practices described, and all conceded to the seriousness of the drug abuse problem. Factor B : Effectiveness of Control Efforts. - -Factor B showed a significant overall difference of . 025 on the F test. The building adm inistrators, teachers, and d istrict adm inistrators had no significant differences among their means. Counselors were 122 TABLE 7 FACTOR SIGNIFICANCE, FACTOR RELIABILITY, AND GROUP DIFFERENCES FOR CERTIFICATED GROUPS Factor F-Ratio Significance & Rkk from Two-way Analysis Factor Means and New Duncan Range Homogeneous Sets of Means at .05 Protection Levela All BA Te DA Cs Significance Rkk .005 .964 2.360 2.409 2.552 2.628 A BA Te Cs DA Significance Rkk .005 .964 2.306 2.412 2.642 2.657 B BA Te DA Cs Significance Rkk .025 .956 3.049 3.161 3.193 3.465 C DA Cs Te BA Significance Rkk .05 .990 1.702 1.966 2.132 2.170 D BA DA Cs Te Significance Rkk NS .810 2.100 2.167 2.202 2.264 E Te BA Cs DA Significance Rkk .25 .944 1.597 1.890 1.920 2.167 F Te BA DA Cs Significance Rkk .10 .962 1.778 1.827 2.194 2.439 aMeans coupled by underscoring have a probability greater than .05 of being a homogeneous set with respect to the factor. Means not coupled by underscoring differ from each other by a range whose protection level indicates less than .05 probability that the means are members of a homogeneous set with respect to the factor. Group Abbreviations: BA (Building Administrator), Te (Teacher), DA (District Administrator), Cs (Counselor) 123 significantly different from the three other groups. Reliability of the F test was . 956. All of the certificated groups tended to believe that the m easures being taken by the schools were effective. Counselors agreed least. Factor C: Extent of Abuse. - -This factor showed significant differences at the . 05 level. Reliability was extrem ely high at . 990. The differences among the means were in this case between the d is tric t adm inistrators, who estim ated the lowest rate of abuse, and the teachers and building adm inistrators, who were a homogeneous set with the counselors in a set not including the district adm inistrators. The counselors were not significantly different from any group. Factor D: Individual Responsibility. - -The F test for this factor was not significant. All groups were shown to be homogeneous on the Duncan test as well. The reliability of the F test was . 810. While this reliability was low compared to the other factors, it was average for the reliability of group comparisons on Factor D. Factor E: Dangers of Drug Abuse. - -Factor E did not have a significant F test. The Duncan Range test showed only the extrem es, the teachers and the d istrict adm inistrators, to be significantly different. The teachers were better informed than the d istrict adm inistrators about the dangers of drug abuse. Reliability of the F test was . 944. 124 Factor F: Punishment of S ellers. - -Factor F approached significance, but fell short at . 10. The counselors agreed significant ly less than the teachers and building adm inistrators with the severe punishment of drug sellers but were not significantly different from district adm inistrators. The counselors, however, tended to agree that selling of drugs was more serious than the using of drugs and should be punished more severely. Reliability of the F test was . 962. Combined F acto rs. - -The F test for significance of difference in the means of the Combined Factors was .005. This highly signifi cant result was because of the clear separation of building adm inistra tors and teachers from the d istrict adm inistrators and counselors. Reliability of the F test was . 964. Building adm inistrators and teachers were m ost in agreem ent with the drug abuse control efforts being made in the schools and were the most convinced of the effec tiveness of these efforts. Attitudes of Students Living with and Not Living with Both Parents The fifth, sixth, and seventh hypotheses were formulated to test whether variables other than age might have influenced the student responses. The fifth hypothesis, stated as null, was that students living with both parents did not have significantly different attitudes toward drug abuse from other students. This section 125 discusses the findings for the fifth hypothesis. On their answer sheets students had been requested to indicate the adults living in their homes. They were also asked to indicate the adult's occupation and his relationship to the student. The original intent had been to use this information for two purposes: as a socioeconomic indicator and as an indication of the student's parental status. Upon examination of the sample data, however, the investigators found the occupational descriptions impossible to classify. The relationships for which an occupation was shown did provide the necessary information on parental status, however. From these, the responses were tabulated according to whether the students indicated a combination of adults including both parents or some other combination. Other combinations included one parent, one parent and a step-parent, no parent but another relative, or adults other than relatives. Older siblings were listed with all but the last combina tion. Tabulation of the sample revealed the number of students living with both parents to be 450 and those living with other than both parents to be 177. The answer sheet is shown as part of Appendix C. The statistical methods used for comparison of the two groups were one-way analysis of variance for item responses and two-way analysis of variance for the factor means. Since only two 126 groups were being compared, there was no need to apply the Duncan test; however, the intra-item correlation coefficient was com puted, as for the previous com parisons. Results of the two-way analysis are presented in Table 8. The one-way analysis results for individual items are grouped by factor in Table 9. In the discussion that follows, the results are discussed by factor. Discussion of individual item s is lim ited to those that were significant. Factor A: Propriety of D eterrents. - - Difference between the factor means of the two groups was significant at . 01. Both groups slightly agreed that law enforcement and school disciplinary m easures were appropriate, but students living with both parents agreed signifi cantly m ore. Reliability was .987. Only two individual items had a significant F ratio. On Item 43, although both groups disagreed with the item, students living with both parents disagreed significantly less that school authorities should discipline off-campus offenders. Students living with both parents agreed that police should report drug offenders to the schools (Item 42), but the other group disagreed slightly with the item. The signifi cance level of the difference was . 025. Of the remaining item s, only Item 46 was near significance with an F of . 10. This item , too, related to off-campus offenses. The reason for factor significance was the system atic TABLE 8 SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCE IN FACTOR MEANS AND RELIABILITY OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STUDENTS LIVING WITH BOTH PARENTS AND OTHER STUDENTS Factor Factor Means F Significance Reliability (Rye) Living with Both Parents Living with Other Adults All 2.797 2.877 .001 .991 A 2.872 2.976 .01 .987 B 3.181 3.232 .10 .993 C 2.306 2.323 .10 .999 D 2.770 2.865 NS .959 E 2.346 2.387 .10 .998 F 2.544 2.667 .25 .989 difference between the groups. On fourteen of the seventeen items the means of the students living with both parents were more in agreement, or less in disagreement, with the propriety of law en forcement and school disciplinary deterrents. Factor B : Effectiveness of Control Efforts. - -The F ratio for Factor B had a significance of . 10. Reliability was . 993. Students living with both parents disagreed somewhat less that drug abuse control efforts were effective. No individual items were significant. Only Item 26 came close (at . 10). The essence of Item 26 was that knowing about drug effects would discourage drug abuse. 128 TABLE 9 RESPONSES OF STUDENTS LIVING WITH BOTH PARENTS, RESPONSES OF OTHER STUDENTS, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF F RATIOS BY ITEM Means and Standard Deviation One-way Analysis Item of Item Responses of Variance Both Parents a Other a F Ratio Significance FACTOR A: Propriety of Deterrents 44 M SD 3.762 1.281 3.836 1.236 .430 NS 49 M 3.756 3.808 .181 NS SD 1.349 1.405 43 M 3.582 3.949 7.851 .01 SD 1.427 1.338 19 M 3.324 3.350 .039 NS SD 1.454 1.466 46 M 3.064 3.288 2.987 .10 SD 1.464 1.443 47 M 3.071 3.169 .708 NS SD 1.308 1.310 38 M 2.964 3.158 2.205 .25 SD 1.472 1.465 35 M 2.853 2.955 .566 NS SD 1.547 1.468 20 M 2.867 2.763 .557 NS SD 1.551 1.605 42 M 2.713 3.045 6.495 .025 SD 1.458 1.492 40 M 2.789 2.746 .106 NS SD 1.473 1.475 41 M 2.658 2.695 .084 NS SD 1.408 1.413 45 M 2.611 2.780 1.718 .25 SD 1.443 1.469 39 M 2.513 2.627 2.695 .25 SD 1.395 1.405 21 M 2.478 2.452 .047 NS SD 1.376 1.377 9 M r 1.956 1.994 .130 NS SD 1.189 1.210 1 1 M 1.842 1.972 1.681 .25 SD 1.110 1.171 Factor M 2.872 2.976 See Table 8 129 TABLE 9 -Continued Means and Standard Deviation One-way Analysis Item of Item Responses of Variance Both Parents Other F Ratio Significance FACTOR B: Effectiveness of Control Efforts 18 M SD 3.887 1.149 3.898 1.281 .013 NS 33 M 3.822 3.910 .849 NS SD 1.088 1.036 13 M 3.324 3.350 .071 NS SD 1.052 1.171 34 M 3.284 3.203 .454 NS SD 1.361 1.339 14 M 3.202 3.316 .866 NS SD 1.372 1.387 48 M 2.904 2.977 .380 NS SD 1.338 1.316 26 M 2.807 3.006 3.449 .10 SD 1.175 1.281 32 M 2.778 2.819 .149 NS SD 1.169 1.285 16 M 2.558 2.605 .164 NS SD 1.292 1.302 Factor M 3.181 3.232 See Table 8 FACTOR C: Extent of Abuse 1 M 3.049 3.068 .029 NS SD 1.267 1.242 2 M 2.431 2.463 .098 NS SD 1.180 1.188 3 M 2.058 2.073 .018 NS SD 1.155 1.170 4 M 1.684 1.689 .003 NS SD 1.119 1.120 Factor M 2.306 2.323 See Table 8 130 TABLE 9 -Continued Means and Standard Deviation One-way Analysis Item of Item Responses of Variance Both Parents Other F Ratio Significance FACTOR D: Individual Responsibility 29 M 3.189 3.294 .786 NS SD 1.330 1.329 30 M 2.791 3.068 5.954 .025 SD 1.267 1.304 28 M 2.664 2.621 .157 NS SD 1.221 1.164 8 M 2.436 2.475 .113 NS SD 1.308 1.262 Factor M 2.770 2.865 See Table 8 FACTOR E: Physical Dangers 22 M SD 2.769 1.032 2.819 1.141 .277 NS 17 M 2.624 2.655 .078 NS SD 1.208 1.303 10 M 2.293 2.271 .044 NS SD 1.157 1.162 24 M 1.696 1.802 1.319 .25 SD 1.000 1.130 Factor M 2.346 2.387 See Table 8 FACTOR F : Punishment of Sellers 50 M SD 2.989 1.526 3.034 1.604 .103 NS 37 M 2.564 2.797 4.264 .05 SD 1.256 1.303 36 M 2.080 2.169 .578 NS SD 1.318 1.309 Factor M 2.544 2.667 See Table 8 Total M 2.796 2.877 See Table 8 131 On eight of the nine item s, the means of students living with both parents agreed more with the factor; however, the difference was so slight that the factor was not significant. Factor C: Extent of Abuse. - -The pattern of difference on this factor was sim ilar to that of Factor B. The F significance was . 10; the reliability was .999. Students living with both parents estim ated a lower rate of abuse on all four item s, but so narrowly that the factor means were not significantly different. Factor D: Individual Responsibility. - -Unlike factors B and C, the F ratio of Factor D did not approach significance. The reliability of .959, although lower than for other factors in this comparison, was substantially higher than for the comparison of other groups on Factor D. Both groups agreed with the sense of the factor--that an individual, not society, is responsible for the decision to use drugs. The margin of agreement, however, was not large. One item (number 30) was significant at . 025. The item implies that students reso rt to drug abuse because of conflict between generations. Students living with both parents were less inclined to blame student drug abuse on adults. Factor E: Dangers of Drug Abuse. - -Factor E had an F significance of . 10 with a reliability of . 998. Both student groups agreed to the dangers of drug abuse, those living with both parents 132 m ore so than the others. Individual items were not significant. Factor F: Punishment of S ellers. - -The F ratio for this factor was not significant. Reliability was .989. Item 37 was individually significant at .05, those living with both parents agreeing more than the others that severe punishment would deter drug selling. Both groups agreed with the sense of the factor--that drug pushers should be punished m ore severely than drug u sers. Combined F acto rs. --The significance of difference between the means of the groups was . 001 when all factors were combined. Reliability of .991 suggested a real population difference. The difference between students living with both parents and other students resulted from sm all, but consistent, differences on the items. On thirty-five of the forty-one items the students living with both parents had lower means than the other students. Only four of the forty-one items had significantly different means individually and only Factor A was significant among the factors. While A's signifi cance of . 01 indicated differences toward law enforcement and disciplinary deterrents, the overall significance for Combined F ac tors of . 001 could not have resulted from A alone: the n ear significance of factors B, C, and E had to be taken into account. Overall, students living with both parents were significantly more in harmony with adult attitudes toward drug abuse. 133 Attitudes of Students Indicating and Not Indicating a Course including Instruction in the Dangers of Drugs The topic of the preceding section, whether a student was living with both parents, was an independent variable over which the schools could have no control. This section considers the impact of a variable that the schools can control, the kind of instruction offered on the dangers of drugs. Students were requested to indicate on their answer sheets whether they had taken a course including instruction in the dangers of drugs. They were to indicate this by writing the name of the course and the year they had taken the course. This method was selected for two reasons: the first was that it would provide inform a tion about the courses in which instruction was offered and the year in which it was offered; the second reason was that naming the course would help distinguish organized instruction from incidental discus sion of the topic in a course. If a student had received a recogniz able, well-defined unit of instruction, it was assumed he would be able to rem em ber the course in which he received it. A tabulation of the responses indicated 390 students as having taken a course includ ing instruction on dangers of drugs and 238 students as not having had such a course. 134 The statistical methods used to analyze the 628 responses were the same as those applied in the preceding sections. The one way analysis of variance was applied to individual item s. Two-way analysis of variance was used to determ ine significance of difference in factor means. Intra-item correlation coefficients were computed to estim ate the reliability of the F ratio for the two-way analysis. The results of these computations are presented in Table 10 and Table 11. For brevity, the students who indicated having taken a course including instruction in dangers of drugs are designated as "course students" and those who did not indicate having taken a course are designated as "no-course students. " Factor A: Propriety of D eterrents. - -Factor A was extremely significant with an F of . 001. Reliability of the m easure was .987. The course students agreed slightly with the sense of the factor; the no-course students disagreed slightly. On individual item s the course students slightly agreed (Item 47) that the schools had been too easy on drug offenders. The no course students disagreed. The F significance was . 002. Both groups opposed severe punishment for the possession and use of drugs on campus (Item 49). The course students, however, opposed signifi cantly less (. 025) than the no-course students. Similarly, both groups opposed disciplinary action by the schools against off-campus 135 TABLE 10 SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCE IN FACTOR MEANS AND RELIABILITY OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STUDENTS INDICATING HAVING TAKEN A COURSE IN DANGERS OF DRUGS AND STUDENTS NOT INDICATING A COURSE Factor Factor Means F Significance Reliability ( R ^ ) Indicating Course ■ Not Indicating All 2.753 2.977 .001 .973 A 2.778 3.101 .001 .987 B 3.128 3.283 .10 .944 C 2.310 2.309 NS .964 D 2.748 2.877 .25 .962 E 2.300 2.461 .10 .984 F 2.689 3.070 .05 .998 possessors of drugs, but the course students opposed intervention significantly less (. 01) than the no-course students. On Item 46, both groups opposed slightly the barring of students from school who were users or sellers off campus. The no-course students were opposed more, but the difference was not significant. In cases where a student had been accused of violating a drug law, both groups were opposed (Item 44) to the school's taking action prior to a court deci sion. The course students were less opposed but, again, not significantly so. 136 TABLE 11 RESPONSES OF STUDENTS INDICATING HAVING TAKEN A COURSE IN DANGERS OF DRUGS, RESPONSES OF STUDENTS NOT INDICATING, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF F RATIOS Means and Standard Deviation One-way Analysis Item of Item Responses of Variance Indicating a Not Indicating a F Ratio Significance FACTOR A: Propriety of Deterrents 44 M SD 3.718 1.294 3.899 1.215 3.024 .10 49 M 3.667 3.929 5.459 .025 SD 1.389 1.312 43 M 3.562 3.878 7.472 .01 SD 1.463 1.308 19 M 3.218 3.508 5.896 .025 SD 1.487 1.392 46 M 3.079 3.218 1.335 .25 SD 1.452 1.473 47 M 2.977 3.311 9.722 .002 SD 1.329 1.252 38 M 2.872 3.244 9.512 .002 SD 1.509 1.387 35 M 2.656 3.244 22.537 .001 SD 1.527 1.458 20 M 2.685 3.088 10.020 .002 SD 1.563 1.522 42 M 2.685 3.029 8.131 .005 SD 1.475 1.456 40 M 2.608 3.076 15.123 .001 SD 1.456 1.468 41 M 2.492 2.966 15.647 .001 SD 1.457 1.452 45 M 2.513 2.887 9.902 .002 SD 1.467 1.399 39 M 2.426 2.739 7.489 .01 SD 1.377 1.417 21 M 2.362 2.651 6.561 .025 SD 1.372 1.375 9 M 1.874 2.105 5.539 .025 SD 1.155 1.244 11 M 1.833 1.950 1.571 .25 SD 1.093 1.176 Factor M 2.778 3.101 See Table 10 a N = t o n N = 93R Indicating ’ Not Indicating 137 TABLE 11 -Continued Means and Standard Deviation One-way Analysis Item of Item Responses of Variance Indicating Not Indicating F Ratio Significance FACTOR B: Effectiveness of Control Efforts 18 M SD 3.897 1.207 3.874 1.174 .057 NS 33 M 3.887 3.773 1.661 .25 SD 1.036 1.134 13 M 3.323 3.315 .008 NS SD 1.078 1.114 34 M 3.087 3.546 17.379 .001 SD 1.367 1.285 14 M 3.072 3.492 13.944 .001 SD 1.392 1.318 48 M 2.833 3.067 4.571 .05 SD 1.332 1.320 26 M 2.882 2.836 .212 NS SD 1.210 1.217 32 M 2.705 2.895 3.706 .10 SD 1.223 1.153 16 M 2.469 2.748 6.844 .01 SD 1.280 1.314 Factor M 3.128 3.283 See Table 10 FACTOR C: Extent of Abuse 1 M 3.149 2.890 6.143 .025 SD 1.239 1.303 2 M 2.469 2.388 .729 NS SD 1.146 1.222 3 M 2.013 2.143 1.859 .25 SD 1.118 1.218 4 M 1.611 1.814 4.931 .05 SD 1.041 1.238 Factor M 2.310 2.309 See Table 10 138 TABLE 11 -Continued Means and Standard Deviation One-way Analysis Item of Item Responses of Variance Indicating Not Indicating F Ratio Significance FACTOR D: Individual Responsibility 29 M SD 3.177 1.329 3.290 1.330 1.064 NS 30 M 2.772 3.025 5.798 .025 SD 1.288 1.260 28 M 2.667 2.622 .204 NS SD 1.231 1.159 8 M 2.377 2.571 3.315 .10 SD 1.265 1.348 Factor M 2.748 2.877 See Table 10 FACTOR E: Physical Dangers 22 M SD 2.726 1.050 2.882 1.078 3.217 .10 17 M 2.590 2.710 1.405 .25 SD 1.199 1.285 10 M 2.167 2.492 11.715 .001 SD 1.114 1.212 24 M 1.718 1.761 .242 NS SD 1.024 1.095 Factor M 2.300 2.461 See Table 10 FACTOR F: Punishment of Sellers 50 M SD 3.667 1.544 3.929 1.855 3.630 .10 37 M 2.446 2.929 21.882 .001 SD 1.241 1.270 36 M 1.954 2.353 13.721 .001 SD 1.227 1.418 Factor M 2.689 3.070 See Table 10 Total M 2.753 2.977 See Table 10 139 Differences between the groups on the propriety of drug laws and the cooperation of the schools with the police were extremely significant. The course students agreed on Item 35 that laws on drugs should be more severe. The no-course students disagreed. The diff erence had an F significance of . 001. Both groups agreed that drug laws are not too severe (Item 41), but the no-course students just barely agreed. The F test was again significant at . 001. Both groups agreed on Item 39 that students misusing drugs should be found out as soon as possible, but the course students agreed significantly more at the . 01 level. While the course students agreed that police should report offenders to the school, the no-course students disagreed slightly. The difference had . 005 significance. The course students agreed significantly (. 001) m ore that the schools should refer drug offenders to the police on Item 45. There were also pronounced differences between the two groups on the m ore controversial drugs. Both disagreed that m a ri juana is significantly dangerous to the u se r's health (Item 19), but the course students disagreed significantly less (. 025). The course students agreed with the tenuous statem ent that frequent users of m arijuana require more to get "high" than infrequent u sers (Item 20). The no-course students disagreed slightly. The difference had . 002 significance. On Item 21 both groups agreed that marijuana use 140 often leads to other drugs. The course students agreed significantly (. 025) m ore. On Item 38, which asserted that the drug experim enter frequently goes on to stronger drugs or heroin, the course students agreed slightly; the no-course students disagreed slightly. F sig nificance was .002. With .001 significance, the course students agreed that medical doctors should not be allowed to prescribe drugs for addicts, while the no-course students disagreed slightly. Both groups agreed that drugs do not help a person to understand him self better (Item 9), but the course students agreed significantly more at . 025 significance. On the one item with no significant difference, both groups agreed that LSD does not make people creative. Factor B : Effectiveness of Control Efforts. - -This factor had a . 10 F ratio significance. Reliability was .944. Both groups d is agreed slightly with the factor; those indicating a course disagreed less. On Item 16 both groups agreed that the best way to deter drug abuse is to inform the student of the effect of drugs on his health. The course students agreed significantly more (. 01). Both groups agreed somewhat on Item 26, which asked if knowing about the "effect" of drugs upon a person would deter drug abuse. There was no significant difference in the degree of their agreement. Both groups preferred ex-addicts over medical doctors as 141 effective instructors on the dangers of drugs (Item 18). Again, their means were not significantly different. Neither group thought coun seling would persuade a drug user to stop using drugs (Item 13). Item 33 concerned knowledge of drug laws as a deterrent to drug abuse. On neither Item 13 nor Item 33 were the group means signifi cantly different. Both groups also agreed, with no significant differ ence of m eans, that most drug violators are eventually caught (Item 32). On the following item s, however, the groups disagreed significantly. The course students disagreed slightly that a student active in school affairs would not experiment with drugs (Item 14). The no-course students disagreed m ore. The difference was signifi cant at . 001. The course students agreed that strict discipline would prevent drug abuse at school (Item 48). No-course students d is agreed slightly, with a difference significant at .05. The course students also disagreed slightly that stric t enforcement of drug laws would reduce drug abuse, but no-course students definitely disagreed. The difference on this item (number 34) was extremely significant at . 001. Factor C: Extent of Abuse. --This factor was not significant. Reliability of the F test was .964. Items 1 and 4 were individually significant. On Item 1, asking for an estim ate of students who had 142 experimented with drugs, the course students estim ated a higher rate, significant at . 025. On Item 4, asking for an estim ate of daily use, the no-course students estim ated significantly higher (. 05). Factor D: Individual Responsibility. - -The F test for the factor was insignificant. Reliability was . 962 for the F test. Only Item 30 was significant, at . 025: The course students agreed that generation conflict is not important as a cause of drug abuse, and the no-course students disagreed slightly. The course students had lower means on other items as well, but the difference on each item was not significant. Overall, both groups agreed slightly that social problems are not an important cause of drug abuse. Factor E: Dangers of Drug Abuse. - -The F for significant difference had a probability of . 10 for this factor. Reliability was .984. Means of both groups were in the agreem ent range on all items. As with Factor D, the course students agreed more that drugs are dangerous, but the means were not significantly different from those of no-course students, except for Item 10. On this item, with . 001 significance, the course students agreed m ore that a person who has used drugs once is m ore likely to do so again at the next opportunity than a person who has not used drugs. 143 Factor F: Punishment of S ellers. - -Factor F was significant at the .001 level. Reliability of the m easure was .998. On Item 37, course students agreed significantly more (. 001) that severe penalties would reduce drug selling by students. On Item 36 they agreed significantly more (. 001) that sellers of drugs should be punished m ore severely than u sers of drugs. On Item 50 both groups d is agreed with the expulsion of a drug seller for one year. Course students disagreed less, but not significantly less, than no-course students. Combined F acto rs. --O verall significance of difference between the means of the two groups was . 001. The reliability of the F was .973. Course students agreed significantly more than no- course students that the steps the schools have been taking to reduce drug abuse have been appropriate and effective. Summary. - -There was a highly significant difference in the attitudes of the course and no-course students expressed on factors A, F, and combined. There were also extrem e differences on individual item s, especially items included in Factor A. The differ ence was in general attitude and could have resulted from a variable spanning both course and attitude. If so, that variable ought to have been randomly distributed and independent of school membership. Before considering that question, however, the investigators decided 144 to return to the original point of reference, the differences between the SCT groups, to see if the differences between the course and no course students had significance beyond the student groups. Attitudes of T rustees, Certificated Subgroups, and Student Subgroups The factor comparison of the student, certificated, and trustee groups had assumed originally that these groups were intern ally homogeneous. Subsequent comparisons revealed significant differences within the certificated and student groups. In view of this, the investigators decided to make a further examination of the differences among the SCT groups, this time dividing the certificated into separate groups and also dividing the course and no-course students. Statistical method The statistical methods used for the comparison were the same as for previous comparisons: two-way analysis of variance without replication, the New Duncan Range test, and intra-item correlation R ^ . As before, it was necessary to assum e that the means of the groups were a reliable indication of group attitude and were equally stable. 145 Unlike the previous com parisons, however, the size of the groups varied widely, so the assumption of equal stability of the means was less valid. With the comparison of the SCT groups, there had been differences in the size of the groups, but all groups were 100 or m ore in size. With those com parisons, the assumption of equal stability could be made because the standard e rro r of the means was relatively sm all. In the comparison of the certificated groups, the sizes of the groups were about equal, so all could be expected to contribute about equally to the e rro r variance. In the comparison to be made among subgroups, however, the size of groups ranged from 18 (teachers) to 390 (course students). In comparing such groups, the sm aller standard e rro r of the larger groups might result in understating the e rro r variance, which would in turn understate the standard e rro r of the total mean and result in shorter protection ranges on the Duncan Range test. These reduced ranges could lead to a conclusion of significant difference that would be unjustified in the comparison of the sm aller groups. The same argument in reverse would apply to the larger groups; that is, the e rro r variance would be overstated for comparisons among the larger groups and might result in overlooking truly significant differences. The solution to the problem was made on the side of con servatism by increasing the alpha from .05, used in the previous 146 com parisons, to .01. The increase compensated for the possibility of understating the e rro r variance and the protection ranges for the sm aller groups, thus reducing the chances for a Type I e rro r with the sm aller groups. The solution, conversely, increased the chances of a Type II e rro r for the larger groups. Still, it was considered m ore desirable to overlook a significant difference between the larger groups than to conclude that a difference existed between the sm aller groups without justification. Findings A comparison of Table 5 with Table 12 revealed that the interpretation of the SCT differences previously made now required modification. The main differences from the previous comparison resulted from the division of the certificated groups on factors A, B, E, and Combined F actors. The students had been previously considered homogeneous in the SCT comparison; but when the over all comparison of subgroups was made, the students divided into significantly different groups on Factor A and Combined Factors. Only the no-course students rem ained significantly different from all other groups; the course students were homogeneous with d istrict adm inistrators and counselors on Factor A and with counselors on Combined Factors. A re-exam ination of the e a rlier findings is d is cussed below in more detail and summarized in Table 12. Significant TABLE 12 FACTOR SIGNIFICANCE, RELIABILITY, AND HOMOGENEITY OF FACTOR MEANS AMONG STUDENTS INDICATING A COURSE, NOT INDICATING A COURSE, CERTIFICATED GROUPS, AND TRUSTEES FACTOR F RATIOS AND Rkk FACTOR MEANS AND HOMOGENEOUS SETS AT .01 PROTECTION LEVEL a All Significance Rk t .001 Tr BA Te I DA 1 Cs SI | SNI 2.325 2.360 2.409 2.552 2.628 2.753 2.977 .968 m m Significance .001 Tr _ BA Te 1 Cs 1 DA SI | SNI A 2.285 2.306 2.412 2.642 2.657 2.778 3.101 Rkk .970 B Significance .05 .923 Tr BA SI 1 Te | DA SNI | Cs 2.924 3.049 3.128 3.161 3.193 3.283 3.465 kk Significance .05 .986 DA Tr Cs I Te | BA SNI | SI C 1.702 1.882 1.966 2.132 2.170 2.309 2.311 kk D Significance Rkk .01 BA . . . d a Tr 1 c s 1 Te _ s i 1 SNI 2.100 2.167 2.168 2.202 2.264 2.748 2.877 .880 Significance Rkk .01 .972 Te BA Cs 1 Tr 1 DA SI | SNI £ 1.597 1.890 1.920 2.119 2.167 2.300 2.461 Significance .01 .968 Te BA Tr 1 d a | Cs SI | SNI F 1.778 1.827 1.835 2.194 2.439 2.689 3.070 Rkk a Means coupled by underscoring have a probability greater than .01 of being a homogeneous set with respect to the factor. Means not coupled by underscoring differ from each other by a range whose protection level indicates less than .01 probability that the means are members o f a homogeneous set with respect to the factor. Group Abbreviations: Tr (Trustee), BA (Building Administrator), Te (Teacher), DA (District Administrator), Cs (Counselor), SI (Students Indicating a Course), * T * SNI (Students Not Indicating a Course) ^ 148 difference on the Duncan Range test now refers to the . 01 protection level. Factor A: Propriety of D eterrents. --F significance continued to be . 001 as before. There were still no significant differences among tru stees, building adm inistrators, and teachers; but the trustees were now significantly different from d istrict adm inistrators and counselors. Building adm inistrators, previously assumed to be homogeneous with d istrict adm inistrators and counselors, were now significantly different from these groups. D istrict adm inistrators and counselors, as part of the certificated group, had been found to be significantly different from students; now they were homogeneous with the course students. Measured against the e rro r variance of the combined groups, the course students were significantly apart from the no-course students. Only the no-course students were now sig nificantly different from all other groups. Factor B : Effectiveness of Control Efforts. --The F ratio for overall significance of difference among the groups increased from . 10 to . 05. The trustees had been significantly different from all certificated on the SCT comparison; now they were different only from the counselors. All other groups continued to be homogeneous. Factor C: Extent of Abuse. - -The F significance of this factor also increased from . 10 to .05. In the earlier analysis, 149 trustees had estim ated significantly lower than the students, but students and certificated had not been significantly different. The district adm inistrators' low estim ates of the rate of abuse had been concealed previously by their inclusion with the estim ates of the other certificated groups. Now only the d istrict adm inistrators estim ated significantly lower than the students, having supplanted the trustees at the low end of the estimation range. Factor D: Individual Responsibility. - -The certificated sub groups and the trustees continued to be homogeneous as before. The trustees and all certificated subgroups but teachers also continued to be significantly different from the students. The teachers were no longer significantly different from the course students. Even the no course students, significantly different from all but the course students, were still in the agreement range with the sense of the factor. Factor E: Dangers of Drug Abuse. - -The significance of the F ratio increased from . 10 to . 01. Teachers were no longer homo geneous with d istrict adm inistrators, as they had been assumed to be in the SCT comparison. Counselors and district adm inistrators were no longer significantly different from students. Building adm inistra tors were no longer significantly different from course students. T rustees, as before, were homogeneous with all groups. 150 Factor F: Punishment of Sellers. - -The F ratio increased in significance from . 025 to .01. The trustees and certificated groups rem ained homogeneous. The counselors were no longer significantly different from the student groups; the d istrict adm inistrators were no longer significantly different from the course students. Combined F acto rs. --F significance, as before, was .001. The significant difference (. 02) between trustees and certificated was no longer true for trustees, building adm inistrators, and teachers. Teachers continued to be homogeneous with district adm inistrators but were no longer homogeneous with counselors. Building adm inis trato rs were now significantly different from both d istrict adm inistra tors and counselors. Counselors were homogeneous with only the d istrict adm inistrators of the certificated groups, but were now homogeneous with the course students. Only the no-course students rem ained significantly apart from all other groups. Summary. --The assumption of homogeneity within the c e r tificated and student groups had been an oversim plification of the range of attitudes for comparison. The implications of the differ ences found to exist will be discussed further in the conclusions of the final chapter. 151 Attitudes of Students by School toward Drug Abuse The seventh hypothesis advanced in Chapter I, stated as null, was that there are no significant differences in attitudes of students according to school membership. If this hypothesis were to be rejected, the questions considered in the two previous hypotheses, as well as other variables, might then be compared with school differ ences. The factor means of each school were compared by analysis of variance to determ ine if significant difference of means existed among the schools. The means of the schools were then compared by the New Duncan Multiple Range test for significant difference between schools, with a protection level of . 05. The program used was the UCLA Health Sciences Biomedical 07D, revised March 7, 1969. Following the comparisons of school factor means, the disciplinary expectations of students for drug abuse cases at their schools were compared. These expectations were compiled from student responses to the m easures listed on their answer sheets and were ranked by percentage of students indicating a m easure as prob able at each school. The Friedm an test was used to determ ine if there was a sim ilarity among schools in the ranking of disciplinary m easures (3:265). Finally, a ranking of schools by percentage of 152 response for each disciplinary m easure was correlated with the rank ing of mean attitudinal responses of the eleven schools for each fac tor. This was done to see if an unusually high or low expectation for a specific m easure might have had a bearing on the attitudes of the students. The Spearman rank-difference method of correlation was used for the comparison. The Spearman test was also used to c o rre late student descriptive data for each school with the attitudinal rank ing of the schools. Comparison of school attitudes. --The differences among schools w ere significant at the .001 level for factors A, B, C, F, and combined. The means for each school are shown by factor in rank order in Table 13. The Duncan Range results are shown by under lining of all homogeneous means. To illustrate, Combined Factors (All) had four homogeneous sets, including School 11, which was in a set by itself. Schools 2, 1, and 3 were significantly different from schools 8, 10, 9, and 6. School 5 was homogeneous with all but School 11. On Factor A, School 11 was significantly different (. 05) from all but School 2, and on Factor C, all but School 4. On Factor F, School 11 was significantly different (. 05) from all but schools 1 and 2. For all but Factor E, which was not significant on the F test, School 11 was the m ost favorable toward the propriety of law enforce- TABLE 13 SCHOOL FACTOR MEANS, SIGNIFICANCE OF F RATIOS, AND NEW DUNCAN RANGE HOMOGENEOUS SETS OF MEANS AT .05 PROTECTION LEVEL FACTOR F FACTOR MEANS, HOMOGENEOUS SETS (UNDERLINED), AND SCHOOLS (I. D. NUMBER)3 All .001 (11) (2) (1) (3) (7) (5) (4) (8) (10) (9) (6) 2.40 2.61 2.64 2.66 2.76 2.77 2.80 2.88 2.90 2.90 2.94 .001 (11) (2) (3) (1) (5) (7) (4) (10) (6) (8) (9) 2.42 2.70 2.75 2.78 3.02 3.02 3.08 3.12 3.19 3.24 3.27 .001 (11) (3) (1) (7) (2) (5) (8) (9) (6) (4) (10) 2.96 2.98 3.03 3.05 3.07 3.27 3.32 3.33 3.35 3.40 3.41 .001 (11) (4) (10) (8) (7) (9) (2) (1) (5) (3) (6) 1.81 1.82 2.20 2.26 2.29 2.32 2.41 2.47 2.48 2.58 2.59 NS .25 .001 (11) (2) (4) (1) (8) (3) (7) (5) (10) (9) (6) 2.59 2.72 2.73 2.76 2.80 2.80 2.81 2.83 2.84 2.86 2.98 (5) (1) (11) (7) (3) (9) (2) (8) (4) (10) (6) 2.22 2.22 2.23 2.32 2.34 2.36 2.42 2.42 2.42 2.52 2.52 (11) (1) (2) (5) (3) (4) (7) (8) (9) (10) (6) 2.04 2.33 2.36 2.54 2.60 2.63 2.65 2.66 2.70 2.92 2.95 a Means coupled by underscoring have a probability greater than .05 of being a homogeneous set with respect to the factor. Means not coupled by underscoring differ from each other by a range whose protection level indicates less than .05 probability that the means are members of a homogeneous set with respect to the factor. I — ■ C r i 0 3 154 ment and school disciplinary action, believed current efforts to be effective, and estim ated the least amount of drug abuse. At the other extrem e, School 6 was the least favorable to ward all but factors A and B ; however, factors D and E were not significant on the F test, and on the remaining factors School 6 was a member of homogeneous sets that included several schools. School 6, unlike School 11, was not significantly apart from the schools with neighboring means, in other words; but its extrem e position on five of the seven factors did reveal a consistency in attitude. Comparison of disciplinary expectations to school attitudes. -- Since the students' expectations of disciplinary action might have influenced their general attitudes, particularly on Factor A, the in vestigators ranked the expectations according to the percentage of students who indicated an action as probable at their school (see Table 14). These rankings within each school were then compared by the Friedm an test to see if the ranking sim ilarities among schools could have occurred by chance. The null hypothesis of no significant difference in the rankings of particular disciplinary m easures was rejected with . 001 confidence. The expected disciplinary m easures among schools did have a common pattern. The mean rank for each m easure is shown below (page 156) with the most frequently expected m easures having the higher ranks: TABLE 14 PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS INDICATING A DISCIPLINARY MEASURE AS PROBABLE IN CASES OF DRUG ABUSE AT THEIR SCHOOL SCHOOL IDENTIFICATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 No Action 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.4 4.3 0.0 1.6 4.7 0.0 Parent Conference 58.3 77.3 64.6 58.1 83.3 59.7 45.7 85.1 47.5 58.1 59.3 Suspension up to Two Weeks 28.3 54.5 18.5 30.6 60.4 36.1 12.9 42.6 23.0 23.3 25.4 Special Required Counseling 15.0 43.2 23.1 41.9 39.6 27.8 15.7 36.2 24.6 25.6 28.8 Expulsion for a Semester 8.3 27.3 4.6 6.5 22.9 8.3 7.1 12.8 24.6 2.3 5.1 Transfer to Another Regular High School 16.7 40.9 4.6 6.5 8.3 22.2 15.7 27.7 4.9 7.0 25.4 Transfer to Continuation High School 31.7 50.0 36.9 29.0 25.0 26.4 5.7 2.1 49.2 16.3 30.5 Referral to Police 75.0 65.9 47.7 59.7 70.8 68.1 58.6 72.3 34.4 51.2 33.9 Don’t Know 6.7 6.8 7.7 12.9 0.0 2.8 14.3 2.1 18.0 14.0 8.5 O l cn 156 Mean Rank Parent conference 8. 54 R eferral to police 8.27 Required special counseling 5.91 Suspension up to two weeks 5.77 T ransfer to continuation high school 5.50 T ransfer to another regular high school 3. 82 Expulsion for one sem ester 3.04 Student did not know 2.96 No disciplinary action 1.18 Even with all schools sim ilar on expected disciplinary actions, it was still possible that one or m ore actions might correlate with the attitudinal means of the schools, so the percentage of response at each school for a specific m easure was then ranked by school. These rankings were correlated by the Spearman rank- difference method with the rankings of school attitudinal means for each factor. The results are presented in Table 15. To be significantly g reater than zero correlation at . 10 on a two-tail test, the rho for any combination of action and factor had to be .535 or m ore. The highest was .482; there were no co rre la tions between disciplinary expectations of the students and the a tti tudes they expressed toward the role of the school that were TABLE 15 RANK-DIFFERENCE CORRELATION OF EXPECTED DISCIPLINARY MEASURES OF SCHOOL SAMPLES CORRELATED WITH MEAN FACTOR ATTITUDES OF SCHOOL SAMPLES Factor Parent Conference Referral to Police Required Counseling Suspension up to Two Weeks Transfer to Continuation High School Transfer to Another Regular High School Expulsion for a Semester Don’t Know All - .170 - .318 - .027 + .009 - .373 - .318 + .075 + .082 A - .220 - .236 - .082 - .036 - .409 - .236 + .189 + .145 B - .184 - .209 + .309 + .218 - .318 - .209 + .048 + .127 C + .352 - .100 - .236 + .173 + .255 - .100 + .334 - .482 D - .207 - .418 - .345 - .182 - .273 - .418 + .061 + .082 E - .066 + .027 + .273 + .064 - .164 + .027 - .148 + .145 F - .243 - .264 - .118 - .173 - .195 - .264 - .057 + .218 Two-tail test of significance a t . 10 level requires a rho of .535. (Guilford, Table L, p. 593) cn -< i 158 significantly g reater than zero correlation. Comparison of student descriptive data and course indication to school attitudes. --In addition to the students’ ages, the adults in their homes, and whether they had taken a course including instruc tion on dangers of drugs--all items previously discussed--the student respondents had been asked to indicate their sex, years they had lived in their present hom es, and the year they had taken their courses in dangers of drugs, if any. All of these facts are sum m ar ized in Table 16 as a percentage of the school sample. Schools were then ranked on these data. Spearman correlations were computed between the ranks of schools on student age, for instance, and the ranks of the schools on each factor mean. The results are shown in Table 17. A one-tail test for zero correlation was applied, with the following predictions: the younger-student schools with the higher ranks would be less drug-abuse tolerant and in g reater agreement with the overall statem ent (negative correlation); the schools with the higher percentage of males would be more tolerant (positive co rrela tion); the schools with the shorter average residence (higher rank) would be more tolerant (positive correlation); schools with a higher percentage of students living with both parents would be less tolerant (negative correlation); schools with a higher percentage of students TABLE 16 STUDENT DESCRIPTIVE DATA AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE SCHOOL SAMPLE SCHOOL IDENTIFICATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Sample Size 60 44 65 62 48 72 70 47 61 43 59 Age: Percent 15 17 98.3 97.7 98.5 98.4 91.7 94.4 98.6 89.4 49.2 97.7 100.0 Sex: Percent Male 45.0 36.4 55.4 38.7 56.3 48.6 67.1 63.8 54.1 51.2 45.8 Years of Residence a 73.3 65.9 63.1 80.6 68.8 58.3 57.1 53.2 45.9 72.1 49.2 Living with Both Parents 68.3 56.8 73.8 82.3 68.8 84.7 64.3 72.3 63.9 55.8 83.1 Course Taken in Drugs 90.0 90.9 72.3 30.6 93.8 68.1 40.0 38.3 34.4 20.9 93.2 Year of Drug Course b 80.0 88.6 58.5 17.7 85.4 55.6 12.9 10.6 14.8 20.9 86.4 a Percent of sample living eight years or less in present home, k Percent indicating tenth grade, modal year when course indicated. or TABLE 17 RANK-DIFFERENCE CORRELATION OF STUDENT DESCRIPTIVE DATA AND DRUG COURSE DATA BY SCHOOL WITH SCHOOL ATTITUDE FACTOR MEANS Factor Age (% 15-17) Sex (% male) Years of Residence (% 8 years or less) Living with Both Parents (% “yes”) Course in Drugs (% “yes”) Drug Course Year (% 10th grade) All - .666 a + .286 - .100 .000 - .655 a - .645 a A - .698 a + .373 - .209 - .100 - .727 a - .809 a B - .561 a - .064 + .273 - .182 - .718 a - .464 C - .298 + .127 + .082 + .091 + .391 + .245 D - .548 a + .491 - .164 - .145 - ,309 - .418 E - .266 - .209 + .064 + .055 - .691 a - .391 F - .502 + .364 - .173 - .091 - .709 a - .700 a a Rho significantly greater than zero at .05 point of confidence. Confidence points are .535 (probability is less than .05, one-tail test) and .729 (probability is less than .01, one-tail test). (Guilford, Table L, p. 593.) 161 indicating a course would be less tolerant (negative correlation); and schools with a higher percentage of students indicating the tenth grade, the modal year, would be less tolerant (negative correlation). The one-tail test for zero correlation required a rho of . 535 for rejection of the null hypothesis at the . 05 point of confidence and of . 729 for rejection at the . 01 point. The correlation coefficients are shown in Table 17. C orre lations between age and attitude were significant at the . 02 point for Factor A and Combined Factors and at the . 05 point for factors B and D. The direction of correlation was confirmed and the null hypothesis of zero correlation rejected. Sex of the student samples did not relate significantly to any factor. The closest to significance was Factor D, whose topic con cerned individual responsibility and was closely related to generation conflict. Years of residence in the community showed no significant relationship to attitude. M oreover, on factors A, D, F, and com bined the correlations were not even in the directions predicted. The number of students living with both parents did not relate significantly to any factor, yet the percentage of students shown in Table 16 ranged from 55.8 to 84.7 per cent. The contradiction be tween this finding and the previous finding of significant differences of 162 attitude between students living with both parents and those not living with both parents is discussed further in the final chapter conclusions. The percentage of students indicating having taken a course in dangers of drugs had the most significant relationship to the attitude ranks of the schools. The correlation was significantly g reater than zero on all factors but C and D. The significance approached . 01 on factors A, B, E, and F. It was .02 for all factors combined. Percentage of students indicating the tenth grade as the year of the course to some extent paralleled the students indicating a course, since indication of a course was prerequisite to indication of the year. The correlation of these responses with the ranking of Factor A was well over .01 significance; however, the overall signifi cance of correlation was nearly identical to that of the total course group. Summary. - -Extrem ely significant differences in attitudes among schools were indicated on factors A, B, C, F , and combined. When a comparison of expected disciplinary actions for drug offenses was made among the schools, a common pattern emerged; m oreover, no individual disciplinary practices showed significant correlation with group attitudes on any factor. When other student data were correlated with factor attitudes, age of the students and whether the students indicated having taken a 163 course in dangers of drugs had a correlation with attitudes significant ly g reater than zero. Of these, the course indication had the stronger relationship, showing very significant correlations with factors A, B, E, and F. The correlation for Combined Factors was somewhat weaker, but still significant. Selected Findings from the Preceding Comparisons The results of the comparisons previously described in the chapter are sum m arized in the subsections that follow. The first subsection presents a comparison of the respondent groups for factors A, B, C, D, and combined A-F. The second is devoted to the responses of the SCT groups to selected items considered representa tive of the m ore important topics included in those factors. The third subsection includes findings that did not fit into either of the preced ing two categories but were considered important. The fourth sub section discusses the relationship between findings presented in chapters IV and V. Results of group comparisons by factor The group comparisons presented in the previous sections were in factor sequence for the groups immediately under considera tion. This perm itted a comparison of differences among factors but 164 inhibited comparison of all group combinations for a particular fac tor. As a summary of the latter com parisons, all group combina tions are shown for factors A, B, C, D, and combined A-F in the form at that has been used to present the results in the previous sec tions. Means are shown for each group and are in rank order from left to right. Lower means are more in agreement with the sentence that expresses the sense of the factor and appears at the top of the listing. Means below 3.00 are in the agreem ent range of response. F values express the significance of overall differences among the means included in the comparison. Sets of means shown to be homogeneous on the Duncan test are denoted by underscoring. Unless two means are so connected, their difference is significant at least at the . 05 protection level. Groups not connected by continuous underscoring are significantly different from all other groups. Certificated group abbreviations are: building adm inistra tors (BA), teachers (Te), counselors (Cs), and district adm inistra tors (DA). It is noted that in this presentation abbreviations for students, certificated, and tru stees, form erly S, C, and T (or SCT) are St, Ce, and T r, respectively, to avoid confusion with other abbreviations. The remaining abbreviations are self-explanatory. Factors E and F are not included in the selection because of 165 the problems in factor loading that were discussed in the earlier section describing the factor analysis; however, the item s that constituted these factors are included in the comparison for the Combined Factors. Comparison on Combined F acto rs. - -The sense of the over all combination was: The efforts of the schools to reduce drug abuse have been appropriate and effective. 1. Student, certificated, trustee: F = . 001 T r Ce St 2.32 2.49 2.82 2. Students indicating course, not indicating: F = . 001 SI SNI 2.75 2.98 3. Certificated subgroups: F = .005 BA Te DA Cs 2.36 2.41 2.55 2.63 4. Student and certificated subgroups, trustees: F = . 001 T r BA Te DA Cs SI SNI 2.32 2.36 2.41 2.55 2.63 2.75 2.98 166 5. Age groups: F = . 001 41+ 31-40 15-17 18-20 2.36 2.47 2.80 3.04 6. Students with both parents, other students: F = .001 SBo SOth 2.80 2.88 The following are restatem ents of the findings illustrated above: Statement: The efforts of the schools to reduce drug abuse have been appropriate and effective. 1. All groups agreed with the statem ent, but the trustees agreed significantly m ore than the certificated. The certificated agreed significantly m ore than the students. Overall difference among groups was significant at . 001. 2. Both students indicating a course in drug dangers and students not indicating a course agreed with the state ment, but the course students agreed significantly more (. 001). 3. Certificated subgroups divided into two homogeneous sets, both sets agreeing with the statem ent. The build ing adm inistrators and teachers, in the first set, agreed significantly m ore than the district adm inistrators and 167 counselors. Overall significance was .001. 4. The student subgroups and certificated subgroups, when compared with trustees, formed five sets. The extreme sets were the set com prised of the trustees, building adm inistrators, and teachers and the set comprised of the no-course students. The Tr-BA-Te set agreed most and was significantly different from all but d istrict adm inistrators. The no-course students were signifi cantly different from all other groups, and agreed least. Overall significance was .001. 5. Age groups formed three sets. The set made up of adults agreed most with the statem ent. The students formed two sets, each significantly different from the other and from the adults. Only the 18-20 group d is agreed with the statem ent. Overall significance was . 001. 6. Students living with both parents agreed significantly more (. 001) with the statem ent than did the other stu dents, but both groups agreed. Factor A. --Law enforcement and school disciplinary d eter rents to drug abuse have been appropriate. 168 1. Student, certificated, trustee: F = . 001 T r Ce St 2.28 2.50 2.90 2. Students indicating course, not indicating: F = .001 SI SNI 2.78 3.10 3. Certificated subgroups: F = . 005 BA Te Cs DA 2.31 2.41 2.64 2.66 4. Student and certificated subgroups, trustees: F = .001 T r BA Te Cs DA SI SNI 2.28 2.31 2.41 2.64 2.66 2.78 3.10 5. Age groups: F = . 001 41+ 31-40 15-17 18-20 2.38 2.44 2.88 3.21 6. Students with both parents, other students: F = .01 SBo SOth 2.87 2.98 The following are restatem ents of the findings illustrated above: Statement: Law enforcement and school disciplinary deterrents to drug abuse have been appropriate. 1. Trustees and certificated formed a homogeneous set significantly apart from the students with an F-ratio significance overall of .001. The T r-C e set agreed m ore with the statem ent than the student set, but stu dents also agreed. 2. Students indicating a course in dangers of drugs agreed with the statem ent and were significantly apart from the no-course students with an F of . 001. The no-course students disagreed with the statement. 3. Certificated formed two homogeneous subgroups signifi cantly different from each other. All groups agreed with the statem ent, but the building adm inistrators and teachers, forming the first group, agreed m ore than the d istrict adm inistrators and counselors. Overall F significance was . 005. 4. When combined, the certificated and student subgroups and the trustees divided into four homogeneous sets. The trustees, building adm inistrators, and teachers were the set agreeing m ost with the statem ent. The teachers, however, were also homogeneous with the counselors and d istrict adm inistrators. The latter two 170 were in turn homogeneous with the course students. Only the no-course students were a distinct group, d is agreeing with the statem ent and significantly apart (. 01) from the others. 5. Age groups formed three sets. The adults were in the first set and agreed m ost with the statem ent. Students were significantly different from the adults and from each other. The F significance for overall differences was . 001. The 18-20 group was the only one disagree ing. 6. Students living with both parents agreed significantly m ore (. 01) with the statem ent than the other students did. Factor B. - -Efforts to control drug abuse among students have been effective. 1. Student, certificated, trustee: F = . 10 T r St Ce 2.92 3.19 3.22 2. Students indicating course, not indicating: F = . 10 SI SNI 3.13 3.28 171 3. Certificated subgroups: F=.025 BA Te DA Cs 3.05 3.16 3.19 3.46 4. Student and certificated subgroups, trustees: F = .05 T r BA SI Te DA SNI Cs 2.92 3.05 3.13 3.16 3.19 3.28 3.46 5. Age groups: F=.05 41+ 31-40 15-17 18-20 3.05 3.14 3.18 3.35 6. Students with both parents, other students: F = . 10 SBo SOth 3.18 3.23 The following are restatem ents of the findings illustrated above: Statement: Efforts to control drug abuse among students have been effective. 1. T rustees, students, and certificated formed two homo geneous, overlapping sets. The students were homo geneous on either side with both the certificated and the trustees. The F was not significant at . 10 for overall differences among groups; however, the certificated and trustees were significantly different on the Duncan test. Only the trustees agreed. Students indicating a course were not significantly different from students not indicating a course. The F of . 10 was not significant. Both groups disagreed with the statem ent. Certificated were two homogeneous sets. The counse lors were in one set alone and disagreed significantly m ore with the statem ent than the other set, but all groups disagreed with the statem ent. F was significant at . 025. When internal differences among students and certifi cated w ere considered and compared with each other and the tru stees, only two groups at either extrem e were significantly different. These were the trustees and the counselors, with the trustees agreeing with the statem ent and the counselors disagreeing. F was . 05 significance. The age groups divided into two overlapping sets. Only the 41+and the 18-20 groups were significantly different, since the middle groups w ere homogeneous with all groups. All groups disagreed with the statem ent, but 173 the older groups disagreed least. F was . 05 for overall significance of difference. 6. The students living with both parents were not signifi cantly different from the other students. F was . 10 significance. Both groups disagreed with the statem ent. Factor C. - -The extent of drug abuse among students has been minimal. 1. Student, certificated, trustee: F = . 10 T r Ce St 1.88 1.94 2.31 2. Students indicating course, not indicating: F = NS SI SNI 2.31 2.31 3. Certificated subgroups: F = . 05 DA Cs Te BA 1.70 1.97 2.13 2.17 4. Student and certificated subgroups, trustees: F = . 05 DA T r Cs Te BA SNI SI 1.70 1.88 1.97 2.13 2.17 2.31 2.31 174 5. Age groups: F = .025 41+ 31-40 15-17 18-20 1.69 2.12 2.28 2.56 6. Students with both parents, other students: F = . 10 SBo SOth 2.31 2.32 The following are restatem ents of the findings illustrated above: Statement: The extent of drug abuse among students has been minimal. 1. The trustees, certificated, and students formed two homogeneous, overlapping sets. The F of . 10 did not indicate overall significance; however, the Duncan test did show significant difference between trustees and students at the extrem es. All groups agreed with the statem ent by estimating in the lower-half range. 2. The difference between students indicating a course and students not indicating a course was not significant. Means, when rounded, were the same and were in agree ment with the statement. 3. Certificated all agreed with the statem ent, but the teachers and building adm inistrators were significantly different from the d istrict adm inistrators. Counselors were the only m em bers of both overlapping homogeneous sets. F was significant at . 05 for overall differences. 4. The combined trustee, certificated, and student sub groups divided into two homogeneous sets. Overall F significance was . 05. The d istrict adm inistrators estim ated a rate of drug abuse significantly lower than the student groups' estim ates. 5. Age groups were in two overlapping sets. The 41+ group estim ated a significantly lower rate than the student groups, but the younger adult group was not significantly different from the students in estim ation of drug abuse frequency. Overall F significance was .025. 6. Students living with both parents did not estim ate a sig nificantly different rate of drug abuse from students not living with both parents. F was . 10 significance. Factor D. - - An individual is responsible for his decision to abuse drugs. 1. Student, certificated, trustee: F = .01 T r Ce St 2.17 2.20 2.80 176 2. Students indicating course, not indicating: F = .25 SI SNI 2.75 2.88 3. Certificated subgroups: F = NS BA DA Cs Te 2.10 2.17 2.20 2.26 4. Student and certificated subgroups, trustees: F = .01 BA DA T r Cs Te SI SNI 2.10 2.17 2.17 2.20 2.26 2.75 2.88 5. Age groups: F = . 001 41+ 31-40 15-17 18-20 2.16 2.18 2.78 3.02 6. Students with both parents, other students: F = NS SBo SOth 2.77 2.86 The following are restatem ents of the findings illustrated above: Statement: An individual is responsible for his decision to abuse drugs. 1. T rustees, certificated, and student groups formed two homogeneous sets. Trustees and certificated in one set 177 agreed significantly more than the students, alone in the other set. Both sets were in the agreement range for the statem ent. Overall significance was . 01. 2. Students indicating a course were not significantly differ ent from students not indicating a course. Both groups agreed with the statement. 3. Certificated groups were one homogeneous set. All agreed with the statement. F was not significant. 4. The combined trustee, certificated, and student sub groups divided into three homogeneous sets. The adult groups constituted the set most agreeing with the state ment, but the teachers were homogeneous with the course students. The students were homogeneous among them selves. All groups agreed with the statem ent. Overall F significance was . 01. 5. Age groups divided into two discrete sets. The adults were one set and were in more agreem ent than the student set. Only the 18-20 student group disagreed with the statem ent. Overall significance was . 001. 6. Students living with both parents did not disagree significantly with other students. Both groups were in agreem ent with the statement. 178 Results of SCT comparisons for selected items The following item s were selected as representative of the m ost important elements among the forty-one item s. The results are included for only the comparison of the student, certificated, and trustee groups. The means for the items are ranked from left to right with the group mean at the left showing most agreement, or least d is agreem ent, with the statem ent. Means below 3. 00 are in the ag ree ment range. Homogeneity of means was determined by the Tukey test, and these means are underscored by a solid line. Means that were found to be significantly apart are underscored by a line broken by the figure indicating the level of significant difference. A brief exposition of the findings follows the display of each item ’s results. Item 49: A student who has been found with drugs in his possession or under the influence of drugs on the school grounds should be expelled from school for at least one year. T S C 3.63 3/77________3.98 Differences among the groups were not significant. All disagreed with the statement. 179 Item 50: A student who has been caught selling drugs on the school grounds should be expelled from school for at least one year. T C S 2.12 2.52 Q 1 3.01 Overall group differences were extrem ely significant at . 001. T rustees and certificated agreed with the statem ent. Students d is agreed and were significantly different from the certificated and trustee groups. Item 43: School authorities should take disciplinary action against students who have been found guilty of possession of drugs off the school campus. T C S hH— ^ Q 1---- 2^95— ^ Q 1 -----3 ^ 8 Overall group differences were significant at . 001. The trustees and certificated agreed with the statem ent, but trustees agreed significantly m ore. Students disagreed with the item and were significantly apart from certificated, as well as from trustees. Item 45: School officials should refer drug offenders to the police. T C S 1.63 1.91 Q 1 2.66 Overall significance of difference was . 001. All groups agreed with the statem ent, but trustees and certificated agreed 180 significantly more than the students. Item 41: Laws dealing with the use of drugs and m arijuana are not too severe. T C S 2.12 Q 5 2.59_________2.68 Overall group differences were . 005 in significance. All groups agreed with the statem ent. T rustees agreed significantly more than the certificated and students. Item 19: There is a significant danger to one's health in using m arijuana. T C S 2.68________2.86 Q 1 3.33 Overall group differences w ere . 001 in significance. T rustees and certificated agreed with the statem ent, but students disagreed. T rustees and certificated were significantly different from students. Item 21: Using m arijuana often leads to the use of other drugs or narcotics. T C S 1.91 2.02 Q 1 2.48 Overall significance of difference among groups was . 001. All groups agreed, but the trustees and certificated agreed signifi cantly m ore than the students. 181 Item 9: Drugs do not help a person to understand him self better. C T S 1.1 6________ 1.18 Q 1 1.97 Overall significance of difference was . 001, All groups agreed with the statem ent, but the trustees and certificated agreed significantly m ore than the students. Item 16: The best way to keep persons from using drugs is to inform them about the way drugs can affect their health. T S C 2.16 Q 1 2.58________ 2.69 Overall significance of difference was . 025. All groups agreed with the statem ent, but the trustees agreed significantly more than the students and certificated. Item 26: If a student knows a lot about the effect drugs will have on him , he will probably not use dangerous drugs. T C S 2.27 Q 5 2. 66________ 2.87 Overall significance of difference among the groups was . 001. All groups agreed with the statem ent, but the trustees agreed signifi cantly m ore than the certificated and students. 182 Item 14: A student who is active in school affairs will probably not experim ent with drugs. T C S 2.51 Q 5 2.96_________3.23 Overall significance of difference among groups was . 001. T rustees and certificated agreed with the statem ent and students d is agreed; however, the significant difference was in the g reater agree ment of trustees over the certificated, who were borderline and did not differ significantly from the students. Item 48: When school officials "crack down, " students will not risk selling or using drugs at school. S T C 2.92 3JJ8________ 3.39 Overall significance of difference among the groups was . 005. Students agreed, but trustees and certificated disagreed with the statem ent. Only the students and the certificated differed signifi cantly. Item 34: Strict enforcement of drug laws would greatly reduce m isuse of drugs. T C S 2.65________ 2.91 Q 5 3.27 183 Overall significance of difference was . 001 among groups. T rustees and certificated agreed with the statem ent. Students d is agreed. Students were significantly different from certificated and trustees. Item 1: What proportion of the students in high school do you estim ate have experimented with dangerous drugs at least once? (a) one out of twenty; (b) one out of ten; (c) one out of five; (d) one out of three; (e) one out of two. There was no significant difference among groups for experi mental use of drugs. All groups estim ated about 20 per cent of the students had experimented. Item 3: What proportion of the students in high school do you estim ate use dangerous drugs once or twice a week? (a) one out of twenty; (b) one out of ten; (c) one out of five; (d) one out of three; (e) one out of two. S 3.05 T 3.14 C 3.26 C 1.39 T 1.43 01- S 2.06 Overall significance of difference among groups was . 001. All groups estim ated below 10 per cent for frequent use. Students estim ated significantly higher than certificated and trustees. 184 Item 29: Adults who strongly oppose the m isuse of drugs probably do understand the problems of young people today. T 2.24 C 2.40 - .01- S 3.22 Overall significance of difference among groups was . 001. T rustees and certificated agreed with the statement; students d is agreed. Students were significantly apart from trustees and certifi cated. Other findings These findings did not fit into the pattern of group com pari sons for the previous two sections, yet were considered important. 1. Items 19, 20, 21, 38, and 40 loaded on Factor A: Pro priety of D eterrents in the factor analysis of the full sample data. On the basis of the revisions made from the results of the pilot study, these items had been expected to load on Factor E: Dangers of Drug Abuse. All of these item s related to dangers attributed to m arijuana, heroin, and drug escalation. 2. Differences in attitudes among schools toward all factors but D and E were significant at the . 001 level. 3. Disciplinary expectancies of the schools, when ranked 185 by percentage expecting a specific disciplinary m easure, did not correlate significantly with attitudinal differences among schools. 4. Age of the student sam ples, when ranked by school, correlated significantly with school attitudinal differ ences on factors A, B, D, and combined A-F. 5. The number of students indicating having taken a course including instruction on the dangers of drugs, when ranked by percentage indicating at each school, c o rre lated significantly with school attitudes on factors A, B, E, F , and combined A-F. 6. Student descriptive data that did not correlate signifi cantly when ranked by school were sex, years the students had lived in their present hom es, and the number who were living with both of their parents. Relationship of attitudes to school practices The attitudes of the groups investigated in this chapter and sum m arized in the selected findings above were based upon what the respondents perceived to be the practices of the schools relating to drug abuse. The next chapter reports the practices described by certificated respondents who were responsible for initiating and 186 carrying out those practices. The relationship between reported practices and attitudes is also considered. CHAPTER V THE RELATIONSHIP OF DRUG ABUSE DISCIPLINARY, EDUCATIONAL, AND COUNSELING PRACTICES TO STUDENT ATTITUDES This chapter is divided into two m ajor parts. The firs t part deals with the development, distribution, and response to a question naire directed to school d istricts. As school adm inistrators in secondary school, the investigators were personally acquainted with the problem of drug abuse control. Because of this experience the areas for investigation were classified into three broad categories: control by disciplinary m easures, prevention by education, and counseling program s associated with student drug abuse. Disciplinary practices had been the most controversial and the m ost widely discussed among school personnel associated with the problem of drug abuse in the schools. Educational program s were predicted to range from pro gram s designed to m eet the minimum required by law to comprehen sive d istrict program s beginning in elem entary school and culm inat ing in a high school program of several weeks. 187 188 Counseling program s were predicted to fall into three general categories: 1. The traditional counselor-student relationship with counseling on drug abuse an occasional part of the counselor’s relationships with his students. 2. Counseling aimed specifically at drug offenders. These program s include counseling with individuals and with groups with involvement of parents. 3. Community program s involving the school and coopera tion with other community agencies. The second part of this chapter deals with the relationship of these program s to student attitudes. No hypothesis was posed concerning the relationship of student attitudes toward drug abuse and varying practices in discipli nary, educational, or counseling efforts because no evidence existed that differences might exist between schools or d istricts. If con trasting student attitudes were discovered to exist among schools, varying drug abuse control practices that might be found could then be compared with the student attitudes. The information on discipli nary, educational, and counseling efforts was considered to be useful in itself, even if student attitudes proved not to vary significantly among the schools investigated. 189 Disciplinary, Educational, and Counseling Practices Data gathering Although there had been much interest devoted to the drug problem in the schools, there were few objective data on the d istrict practices. The investigators, therefore, attempted to gather infor mation on these practices in Los Angeles County. A questionnaire directed to d istrict and school personnel was selected as the m ost effective method of gathering information from as many d istricts as possible. Development of the instrum ents. —The instrum ents were designed to collect information on practices in the categories of discipline, educational, and counseling practices. To allow for possible variance between schools within d istricts and for divergence between d istricts and building-level perceptions, the instrum ents were tailored to the position of the respondent. Questions on personal data describing the respondents were included for use in comparing drug abuse attitudes. The instrum ents also included information for use as the basis for selection of student sam ples. Appendices D, E, and F contain the instrum ents as they were presented to the respondents. The information covering d istrict practices is presented in a question-by-question sequence in this chapter. 190 Distribution of the instrum ents. - -The instrum ent and an attitude survey for the d istrict adm inistrator were mailed to the person designated by the superintendent. Survey instrum ents for the school personnel were sent to the principals named by the d istrict- level adm inistrator. The principal was requested to distribute the instrum ents to the person whose position or assignment was indicated on the envelope. Cover letters explaining the purpose of the study and the procedure for response were included in each respondent's envelope and are shown in the appendices. students in Los Angeles County were sent the complete package of instrum ents. All forty-seven superintendents of d istricts with secondary Response. - -The following is a summary of the d istrict and school responses on each of the areas surveyed. Number of Questions Responses Responses from d istrict personnel: D istrict policies and procedures Drug abuse and educational program Counseling of drug abusers 1 - 6 21 7 - 13 14 - 16 21 21 Responses from school personnel: School adm inistrative proce dures on drug abuse Instruction on dangerous drugs 1 - 10 1 - 13 21 19 191 Follow-up was done on an individual basis by telephone or letter. Disciplinary policies Two parts of the questionnaire asked for responses concern ing disciplinary practices. Page one of the instrum ent, entitled D istrict Policies and Procedures, was directed to an adm inistrator in the d istrict office. There were six questions in this section. Page four of the questionnaire, School Administrative Procedures on Drug Abuse, contained ten questions directed to a school adm inistrator. D istrict policies and procedures. --A cumulative response to each of the six items on this portion of the questionnaire follows. The questions are given as they appeared in the questionnaire. Question 1: Approximately how many students did your d istrict expel for school-connected drug offenses during the school year 1968-69? Response: 69 Three out of twenty-one districts responding, or 15 per cent, used expulsion as a disciplinary m easure during 1968-69. Question 2: Approximately how many students did your d istrict expel for drug offenses that were not school-connected during the school year 1968-69? Response: 8 Two out of twenty-one districts reported using expulsion for nonschool-connected offenses. 192 Question 3: Of the total number of students expelled for drug offenses during the school year 1968-69, how many have by now been readm itted to a school in your district? Response: 52 All districts reporting expulsion perm itted students to return after expulsion. Question 4: Does your d istrict have a written board policy on student drug abuse? Responses: Yes 12 No 8 Sixty per cent had a written board policy. Question 5: Does your d istrict have a written adm inistrative procedure on the disposition of drug abuse cases that is to be followed by all the schools in your district? Responses: Yes 11 No 9 Fifty-five per cent had a w ritten d istrict adm inistrative procedure. Question 6: Check the best completion to the following statement: "Disciplinary action in drug abuse cases is determined by . . . " Responses a. A district-w ide committee that receives referra ls from all schools. b. An individual at the d istrict level who receives referra ls from all schools. c. A committee at each school that acts independently of other schools. d. An individual or individuals at each school who act independently of each other. e. Other: Board of education Num Per ber Cent 5 25 3 15 4 20 7 35 1 5 Total 2 0 193 In summary, three districts reported the use of expulsion for drug offenses for on and off campus. All d istricts reporting ex pulsion as a policy perm itted students to re-en ro ll. Sixty per cent of the districts had written board policies and 55 per cent had written district adm inistrative procedures. School adm inistrative procedures. --Twenty-one, or 88 per cent, of the adm inistrators responsible for discipline responded to the questionnaire sent to the schools concerning school adm inistrative practices. The cumulative response to items 1 through 10 on this section of the questionnaire is presented as follows: Question 1: How many students from your school did your d istrict expel for drug offenses on campus or at school events during the school year 1968-69? Response: 12 Two schools reported that they expelled twelve students during the 1968-69 school year. Question 2: How many students from your school did your d istrict expel for drug offenses not school-connected during the school year 1968-69? Response: 5 The same two districts reported that they expelled five students for nonschool-connected drug offenses during the 1968-69 school year. Question 3: Of the total number of students from your school who were expelled for drug offenses during the school year 1968-69, how many have now been readm itted? Response: 1 194 Only one of the seventeen students reported expelled during the 1968-69 school year had been readm itted to school. Question 4: How and by whom is disciplinary action decided in drug abuse cases at your school? Responses Dean, vice principal, assistant principal 15 Principal 5 Committee 5 Superintendent 4 Counselor 4 Nurse 4 Board of education 1 D istricts reported using a variety of techniques to determine disciplinary actions in drug abuse cases at the school. The school adm inistrator was responsible for school discipline: The vice princi pal, assistant principal, or dean was the individual most often men tioned as being involved in deciding the disciplinary action. Thirteen of the twenty-one schools, or 62 per cent, mentioned that the policy was flexible, with more than one individual being responsible for the decisions. Question 5: What do you believe to be the most effec tive non-punitive m easure commonly taken in cases of drug abuse at your school? Responses Individual counseling 5 Parent counseling 5 Psychologist 3 Group counseling 2 T ransfer to another school 2 Continuation school 1 Professional counseling 1 Drug abuse class 1 Outside counseling 1 195 The schools reported using a variety of techniques as non- punitive m easures. The most frequently mentioned m easure was some type of counseling--individual, parent, group, or counseling by the psychologist. Question 6: What is the m ost serious disciplinary m easure commonly used to discipline first offenders at your school? Responses Suspension 14 Continuation school 6 Conference 4 Police 3 Expulsion 2 T ransfer to another school 2 Drug abuse class 2 Professional counseling 1 The schools reported a variety of techniques for dealing with first offenders. A combination of disciplinary m easures was rep o rt ed by eleven of the schools. The most common m easure was suspen sion, reported by fourteen schools. Question 7: In your school do you attempt to d is tinguish between kinds of drug offenses in your disciplinary treatm ent of the offender--for instance, do you distinguish between being under the influence of a drug and selling a drug? Responses: If so, in what way? Yes 16 No 5 More severe with seller 13 No response 5 Expulsion 4 Police 3 Flexible 3 196 Sixty-two per cent reported that more severe disciplinary m easures were imposed depending upon the seriousness of the offense: for example, the selling of a drug compared to being under the influence. Question 8: In your school do you attempt to d is tinguish between firs t and second offenders in your disciplinary action? Responses: If so, in what way? Yes 17 No 4 Continuation school 7 Flexible 6 T ransfer 5 Police 1 Increased suspension 1 Expulsion 1 Eighty-one per cent reported that they attempted to distin guish between first and second offenders. The schools tended to use a variety of techniques for differentiating between first and second offenders. Schools reported using more than one approach and tended to be flexible. T ransfer to continuation school or to another school was the m ost frequently reported action. Question 9: In your school do you attempt to d is tinguish between the kinds of drugs misused or sold by the offender--for example, between reds (barbiturates) and LSD? Responses: If so, in what way? Yes 2 No 19 Ninety per cent of the schools reported that they did not attempt to distinguish between the kinds of drugs m isused or sold by 197 the offender. The two d istricts responding positively to the question reported that the use or sale of LSD would be dealt with more severely and that the police would be contacted. Question 10: What do you believe should be done to make the schools m ore effective in reducing drug abuse? Responses Drug education 7 Community support 6 Group counseling; rap sessions 5 Educate at lower level 4 Assistance of probation 2 Cooperation of police 2 Peer pressure 2 Continuation school 2 Consistency of penalty 1 More tolerant attitude 1 Educate parents 1 Control of drug production 1 Cooperation of courts 1 Closer school supervision 1 Parent cooperation 1 Use of ex-addicts in education program 1 A variety of techniques for making schools more effective in reducing drug abuse was suggested. The responses tended to suggest conventional m eans, with education playing a vital role. The respondents indicated that community support was necessary and that rapport with the students through group counseling was im por tant. Four schools recommended that education on drugs should begin at a lower level. In an attem pt to categorize the responses to Item 10, they were placed in two m ajor categories - -prevention and control. The 198 listing indicates that schools seem to recognize the importance of preventive m easures in reducing drug abuse. Seventy-four per cent of the responses recommended preventive techniques such as educa tion and counseling. M easures for Reducing Drug Frequency of Abuse Mention Prevention: Drug education Community support Group counseling Educate at a lower level Peer pressure More tolerant attitude Educate parents Parent cooperation Use of ex-addicts in drug program Total Control: Assistance of probation 2 Cooperation of police 2 Continuation school 2 Consistency of penalty 1 Control drug production 1 Cooperation of courts 1 Closer school supervision 1 Total 10 In sum m ary, 9 per cent of the schools reported the expulsion of students during the 1968-69 school year. Of the seventeen students expelled, only one had been readm itted to school. The school admin istrato r responsible for school discipline was the individual most often mentioned by the schools as being involved in the disciplinary 7 6 5 4 2 1 1 1 JL 28 / 199 decision in drug abuse cases. Some type of counseling was the m ost frequently mentioned non-punitive m easure in drug abuse cases. Suspension was the most serious disciplinary m easure commonly used by the schools to discipline first offenders. Seventy-six per cent of the schools reported that they attempted to distinguish be tween kinds of drug offenses and the disciplinary treatm ent. Sixty- two per cent reported more severe disciplinary action for sellers than for u sers. Eighty-one per cent of the schools attempted to distinguish between first and second offenses. The m ost frequent m easure for second offenses was a transfer to another school, in cluding continuation school. Ninety per cent of the schools did not attem pt to distinguish between the kinds of drugs misused or sold by the offender. The two schools that did attempt this distinction reported m ore serious disciplinary action for use or sale of LSD. Beginning drug education at an early age was a frequently mentioned m easure to make schools m ore effective in reducing drug abuse, following drug education in general, community support, and group counseling. The schools responding stressed the importance of prevention in the area of drug abuse. Educational program s D istrict policies and procedures. --A district adm inistrator in each school d istrict was asked to respond to questions 7 through 13 i 2 0 0 dealing with drug abuse educational program s. The following is the cumulative response on these items. Question 7: Does your d istrict have a course of study for a unit on drug abuse? If you have one, when was the unit introduced? Responses: Yes 16 No 4 1968 6 1967 3 1955, 1960, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1969 le a c h Eighty per cent of the districts had a course of study on drug abuse. One-half of these had their drug abuse courses by 1967 or before. Six d istricts began developing courses of study in 1968. Question 8: Complete the following descriptions of courses in your secondary curriculum that contain drug instructions. Responses Social studies: American government 2 Social studies 3 State requirem ents 7 Family life _ _ 1 Total 13 Health and safety 11 Science: General science 3 Life science 4 Biology 1 Total ~ Physical education 2 Home economics 1 Electives 3 201 The three general areas in the secondary curriculum where drug instruction was most frequently contained, as reported by twenty d istricts, were social studies, health and safety, and science, in that order. Areas least frequently mentioned were physical education, home economics, and the elective program s. A portion of question eight requested information concerning the grade level and hours of instruction of the courses that contained drug instruction in the secondary curriculum . The following is a summary of the responses to this item: Nineteen districts reported that a course in drug instruction was included in the tenth grade curriculum . Seven districts reported a course in the ninth grade, and ten d istricts each reported courses at the eleventh and twelfth grade levels. Five districts had courses at each grade level throughout the secondary curriculum . The minimum number of course hours of instruction on drugs reported in the secondary curriculum was five, and forty-five hours was the maximum number. The most frequently mentioned number of hours was thirty, reported by six districts. The median number of course hours was twenty-five. Question 9: L ist any special qualifications that a teacher who teaches about dangerous drugs must have in your district. Responses None 12 In-service 4 2 02 Health education teacher 4 Sixty per cent of the districts reported that the instructor of the course on dangerous drugs was not required to have special qualifications. Question 10: Indicate the qualifications or background that special lecturers on drug abuse must have to speak on drug abuse in your district. Responses L ecturers not used 5 Police officers 5 Approval 5 Doctor 3 Attorney 3 Knowledge of drugs 2 Senator 2 College professor 1 D istricts used a range of individuals with a variety of back grounds as special lecturers. Twenty-five per cent reported that they did not use outside lecturers, and 25 per cent mentioned police officers—the most frequently reported group. Question 11; If in addition to regular classroom instruction, other m easures have been taken to acquaint students with the problems of drug abuse, indicate these m easures. Responses Assemblies 13 Law enforcement representatives 5 Teen challenge 4 Community program s 2 Pamphlets 2 Poster essay contest 2 Counseling 1 Use of ex-addicts 1 203 The most frequently mentioned m easure other than class room instruction, reported by 62 per cent of the d istricts, was assem blies. Twenty-five per cent reported using more than one m easure. Question 12: Describe briefly any m easures taken in your d istrict to acquaint the certificated staff with the problem of drug abuse. Responses In-service development 15 Printed m aterial 4 Faculty meetings 4 None 1 The m ost frequently mentioned m easure for acquainting certificated staff with the problems of drug abuse was in-service training, reported by 71 per cent of the districts. Question 13: Describe briefly any m easures taken in your d istrict to acquaint parents with the problems of drug abuse. Responses P. T. A. 9 Parent meetings 8 Printed m aterials 8 Parent workshops 3 None 2 Communication media 1 Counseling 1 The m ost frequently mentioned m easures for parent educa tion w ere P.T. A ., parent m eetings, and printed m aterials on drug abuse. In summ ary, 80 per cent of the districts responding had a course of study on drug abuse. One-half of these had a course of 204 study before 1967. After 1967 the m ajor emphasis on curriculum development in drug abuse came in 1968, when six districts reported developing courses of study. Tenth-grade social studies was the most frequently men tioned area for a course in drug instruction. Most districts were spending from twenty-five to thirty course hours on drug instruction in the secondary curriculum . Sixty per cent of the districts responding did not require instructors to have special qualifications to teach the course. The d istricts reported that they used a range of individuals with a variety of backgrounds as special lecturers. Twenty-five per cent used no outside lectu rers. Individuals from law enforcement were mentioned most frequently as outside lecturers. In the area of student instruction, assem blies were m en tioned by 62 per cent of the districts. In-service training was the most popular means of acquainting certificated staff with the problems of drug abuse, used by 71 per cent of the d istricts. P. T. A ., parent m eetings, and printed m aterials were near equally popular as the most used means for parent education in the area of drug abuse. School-reported program s. - -Items 1 through 13 on the portion of the questionnaire entitled Instruction on Dangerous Drugs 2 05 were directed to teachers of courses on dangerous drugs in the high schools. Nineteen teachers responded to these questions, and their cumulative responses follow: Question 1: What course do you teach that includes instruction about dangerous drugs? Responses Num Per ber Cent Health and safety 9 47 Social studies 5 26 D river education 2 11 Biology 1 5 Life science 1 5 Communications 1 5 Total 19 Forty-seven per cent of the schools reported that instruction in dangerous drugs was given in health and safety. The next most frequently reported area, by 26 per cent, was social studies. Question 2: Approximately how many students per teacher are enrolled in each of the class sections that receive this instruction? The median class size reported by the schools was thirty - five students. The range was from a low of twenty-eight to a high of eighty. The one school reporting a class size of eighty was using a team-teaching situation with large group instruction. Question 3: Is instruction on dangerous drugs set apart as a separate unit in this course? Responses: If so, who developed this unit? Yes 16 No 3 ' 206 Responses Num- Per ber Gent Teachers 9 56.0 D istrict level 4 25.0 Cooperative 2 12.5 Commercially produced 1 6.5 Eighty-four per cent of those responding reported that instruction on dangerous drugs was set apart as a separate unit. Of these sixteen schools, in nine (56 per cent) the unit was developed by the teachers, with four (25 per cent) being developed at the district level. Question 4: What year was this unit of instruction introduced? The earliest that a course on dangerous drugs was developed was 1950. Six schools (43 per cent) reported that the course was developed between 1965 and 1966. Question 5: If there is no unit with a defined subject content, what guidance have you received in d eter mining what is to be taught about drugs? Responses Publications pamphlets 4 Staff developments College courses D istrict guidance Textbooks Experts None For those d istricts without a course of study, four schools reported that they relied on pamphlets and other printed m aterials to 207 develop their units on dangerous drugs. Question 6: How many class hours do you devote to drug instruction? The schools reported devoting between two and thirty course hours of instruction on dangerous drugs. The median number of hours was ten. Question 7: Do you attempt to influence attitudes toward drug abuse as well as teach the fact about drugs and drug abuse? If so, how do you do this? Responses Scientific facts and effects 6 Creating atmosphere of freedom 3 Psychology of abuse 2 Use of experts 2 Use of films 1 Seventy-four per cent of the schools reported that they attempted to influence attitudes on drugs and drug abuse. The most frequently mentioned technique was that of presenting facts and effects in a scientific manner. Other methods mentioned were creating a free atm osphere, the discussion of the psychology of abuse, use of experts, and use of film s. Question 8: Do you invite resource persons to speak to your classes about drug problems? Responses: If so, what are their qualifications? Yes 17 No 4 Police 12 Ex-addicts 10 Physicians 3 School resource personnel 1 Psychologists 1 208 Health departm ent 1 College professor 1 Eighty-nine per cent reported that they invited resource persons to speak to their classes. The most frequently mentioned resource persons were police officers and ex-addicts. Question 9: Approximately how do you divide your class time among the following instructional methods? Percentage of Time Lecture Range 2-80 Median 25 Audio-visual Range 10-40 Median 20 Resource Range 3-40 Median 10 Discussion Range 10 - 60 Median 30 The highest median percentage of time spent in instructional methods was 30 per cent in discussion. The lowest median percent age was 10 per cent in the use of resource persons. Question 10: What courses have you had relating to dangerous drugs or the abuse of drugs? Ten schools reported that teachers of the dangerous drugs courses had received training in staff development workshops. College courses were mentioned as the next most frequent method of training. Three districts reported that no special training was necessary. Question 11: What other experience or training have you had that has helped you in teaching about dangerous drugs and drug abuse? 209 Responses Personal experience 9 None 4 Curriculum development 3 Health education training 2 Personal experience was mentioned m ost often by teachers as helpful training for teaching about dangers of drugs. Question 12: Do you believe that instruction on dangerous drugs and drug abuse logically belongs in the course that you are now teaching? If not, what changes would you recommend? Eighty-four per cent of the schools reported that their instruction logically belonged in the courses currently containing the instruction. The one teacher who thought it was in the wrong course recommended that the course be changed to physical education. Question 13: What do you believe should be done to make the schools m ore effective in reducing drug abuse? Responses Teacher training 4 Community cooperation 3 Strict enforcement 3 No response 3 Early education 2 Parent education 2 Factual presentation 2 Removal of causes 2 Unified course of instruction 2 Assemblies Mass media Audio visual Ex-addicts Change of attitudes Unknown 2 1 0 A wide variety of suggestions was offered by the respondents to make the schools m ore effective in reducing drug abuse. The most frequently mentioned technique was the improvement of teacher training. Other factors that seemed important were community co operation and strict enforcement by the police. In sum m ary, school respondents reported that instruction regarding dangerous drugs was given most often in health and safety and social studies courses. The median class size was thirty-five students. In most schools instruction on dangerous drugs was set apart as a separate unit. Schools attempted to influence attitudes on drugs. The most frequently mentioned technique for influencing attitudes was presenting facts in a scientific manner. Most schools reported that their instruction logically belonged in the courses they were currently teaching. The most frequently mentioned technique for reducing drug abuse was improvement of teacher training. D istrict counseling program s Items 14 through 16, in the portion of the questionnaire entitled Counseling of Drug Abusers, were directed to d istrict admin istra to rs. The following is the cumulative response to these item s. Question 14: Is special counseling of known drug abusers provided by your district? Responses: Yes 11 No 10 211 Fifty-two per cent of the districts reported a provision for special counseling of drug offenders. Question 14a: Can students refer themselves for this counseling? Responses: Yes 11 No 0 All of the districts reporting special counseling perm itted students to refer themselves for counseling. Question 14b: Is counseling compulsory for detected offenders? Responses: Yes 3 No 5 T hirty-six per cent reported compulsory counseling for detected offenders; 45 per cent reported that counseling was not com pulsory. Three districts reported that occasional compulsory coun seling was demanded. If so, what happens to a student who does not comply? Responses Suspension 3 T ransfer 2 R eferral to other agency 1 The most frequent disciplinary m easure for noncompliance with compulsory counseling was suspension or transfer. How long does counseling continue for a known offender who is required to accept counseling? Responses Unspecified 3 One sem ester 1 Six weeks 1 Four weeks 1 2 12 D istricts tended to be flexible in the length of time assigned to compulsory counseling. Of the six recommending compulsory counseling, three indicated an unspecified length of time. Question 14c: At what time of the day and how many days per week does the counseling take place? Responses Unspecified 5 After school 1 Most d istricts, five, reported that the compulsory counsel ing did not take place at a specified tim e, but was flexible. Question 14d: Is the counseling done with groups or with individual students? Four districts used a combination of group and individual counseling in the compulsory program . No d istrict used individual counseling exclusively, and two districts reported using only group counseling. Question 14e: Is any effort made to involve the parents in the counseling effort? Responses: If so, how is this done? Yes 6 No 0 All d istricts reporting compulsory counseling reported in volvement of parents. Two districts reported using individual coun seling; and two, a combination of individual and group counseling. Question 14f: What are the qualifications of the counselor? Responses Pupil personnel credential 3 Special training 1 213 Psychologist 1 Teaching credential 1 Fifty per cent of the compulsory-counseling districts said the counselor needed only the pupil personnel credential required for counseling. Question 15: Does your d istrict ever refer students with drug problems to outside agencies for counseling? If so, what are these agencies? Responses: Yes 17 No 4 Family counseling 9 Community health agencies 5 Private clinic 4 Private psychiatrist 3 F ree clinic 3 Probation 1 Police 1 Open door 1 Eighty-one per cent of the districts reported that they r e ferred students to outside agencies, with family counseling being the most frequently used agency. Question 16: Are students with drug problems ever expelled with readm ission contingent upon certain conditions? Responses: If so, what are these conditions? Yes 4 No 17 Evidence of rehabilitation 2 Professional help 1 Individual basis 1 Nineteen per cent of the districts reported that they had an expulsion policy with readm ission dependent upon certain condi 214 tions. Of the four districts with expulsion policies, two reported that they required evidence of rehabilitation. One required profes sional help, and one perm itted return on an individual basis. In summary, over one-half of the districts responding (52 per cent) made provisions for special counseling of drug offenders. All of the districts perm itted students to refer themselves. There was no consensus concerning compulsory counseling for detected drug offenders. Only three districts required compulsory counseling regularly, while in eight districts compulsory counseling was not required but was dependent upon the situation. The most frequent disciplinary m easure for noncompliance with compulsory counseling was suspension or transfer. The six d istricts with compulsory counseling of any kind indicated it was for an unspecified period of time. The m ost frequent method of counsel ing was a combination of group and individual counseling. All d is tricts reported involvement of parents in the compulsory counseling program . In parent counseling, districts used a combination of individual and group counseling. In one-half of the districts the pupil personnel credential was required for individuals counseling parents. Most districts, 81 per cent, utilized community agencies. The most frequently mentioned community agency for assistance in 215 drug counseling was family counseling, followed by community health agencies and private clinics. Only four districts, or 19 per cent, had an expulsion policy with readm ission dependent on certain conditions. The conditions for readm ission were evidence of rehabilitation or professional help. Attitudes of Students Compared with Responses from D istricts Method of comparison As indicated earlier in this chapter, no specific hypothesis was posed in gathering the descriptive data on disciplinary, educa tional, and counseling practices. As shown in Chapter IV, the Duncan Range test for signifi cant difference of student attitudes among high schools revealed significant differences for each factor and for all factors combined. The results of the Duncan Range test for Combined Factors were used as a standard for comparison with the varying disciplinary, educational, and counseling practices. Appendix J contains an example of how the comparison between student attitudes and school practices was made. The eleven selected schools were arranged in the ascending order of their attitude means from top to bottom, with the homogeneous sets indicated by vertical lines. For the example, schools 2, 1, 3, 7, 5, and 4 were a homogeneous set; schools 7, 5, 216 4, 8, 10, and 9 were a homogeneous set. Each adm inistrative, counseling, and educational practice was classified under the heading for each school. Dichotomous data were presented as plus and zero. In question 1 in the example, D istrict Policies and Procedures, the item in the questionnaire was: Approximately how many students did your d istrict expel for school-connected drug offenses during the school year 1968-69? A plus sign (+) indicates that a number of students were expelled; a zero (0) indicates that no students in the d istrict were expelled. The method of interpretation of the data is explained in Appendix J. Each response by the d istrict participants on discipli nary, educational, and counseling was compared with student a tti tudes by this method. Standard for significance The Duncan Range test for Combined Factors divided the schools into homogeneous sets, with schools 11, 2, 1, and 3 being significantly different from schools 8, 10, 9, and 6. "Schools 7, 5, and 4 overlapped with both sets. As a prelim inary test of significance, the four schools at either attitude extrem e were compared as sets with each other: schools 11, 2, 1, and 3 were considered m em bers of the intolerant set, and schools 8, 10, 9, and 6 comprised the tolerant set. 217 The chi-square table of significance (9:595) indicated that a four-fold table would require the two sets to be mutually exclusive to be significantly different at the . 05 level. The hypothetical example in Appendix J shows a configuration of "yes" responses for schools 11, 2, 1, and 3 and of "no" responses for schools 8, 10, 9, and 6. The result in this instance would be a significant difference between the students' attitudes in the intolerant and tolerant schools in regard to this adm inistrative practice. Results Application of the standard of mutually exclusive sets showed that none of the adm inistrative, educational, or counseling practices was significantly related to the attitudes of students. Use of the homogeneous sets at either extrem e tended to make the test for significance liberal. Since the prelim inary test failed to reveal significant differences, and since the data upon which the categorizations were based were necessarily somewhat subjective, no evidence of significant differences was concluded to exist so far as the data in the survey might justify. Chapter Summary This chapter was divided into two parts. The first part dealt with the development, distribution, and response to a questionnaire 218 concerning disciplinary, educational, and counseling practices in schools. The second part was devoted to a study of the relationship of these practices to student attitudes. Disciplinary policies Three districts reported the use of expulsion for drug offenses on and off the campus during the 1968-69 school year. Of the schools responding, two reported expulsions. This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that even though a d istrict had an expul sion policy, a particular school in the d istrict might not have had an offense serious enough for the policy to be imposed. It appears from the data that expulsion is not a widespread disciplinary practice in drug abuse offenses. D istrict policy in all districts perm itted students to return after expulsion. A variety of disciplinary p rac tices in drug abuse cases was reported. These practices were flexible in nature, but the individual most often responsible for mak ing the decision concerning disciplinary action was the high school assistant principal. The most frequently mentioned non-punitive action by the schools was counseling. The most common disciplinary action was suspension. Schools reported that they attempted to distinguish between kinds of drug offenses with m ore serious penalties for selling than for use alone. The most frequent disciplinary m easure for 219 second offenses was transfer to another school, including continuation school. The schools responding stressed the importance of preven tion and drug education program s begun at an early age. Educational program s It seemed apparent from responses to the questionnaire that districts and schools had shown interest in the development of drug abuse educational program s. The total course hours devoted to educational program s in high schools ranged from five to forty-five, indicating that some districts had planned for a m ore comprehensive program than others. Over 80 per cent of the schools had a separate unit or course of study on drug abuse. These units were contained in courses throughout the secondary curriculum , in a wide variety of courses. The most often mentioned grade level containing the course on dangers of drugs was the tenth grade, and the most often mentioned courses containing the drug education unit were health and safety and social studies. Five d istricts reported courses at each grade level throughout the secondary curriculum . The instructional methods m ost frequently mentioned were discussion and lecture. Although 60 per cent of the districts reported that no special qualifications were required for teachers of courses containing drug education, the teachers reported receiving additional training in the area through staff development workshops and college 2 2 0 courses. A need was expressed for better teacher training in the drug education area. Teachers seemed to be satisfied that the instruction on drugs logically belonged in the courses they were currently teaching. Schools attempted to influence attitudes in their program s by presenting facts in a scientific manner. Over 75 per cent of the schools used special lecturers in the educational program . The most frequently mentioned resource persons were law enforcement person nel. Assemblies were the most frequently mentioned m easure other than classroom instruction. In conclusion, it seems that d istricts, in general, have separate courses of study where the drug abuse program is concen trated. This course comes generally in the tenth grade social studies or health and safety classes. In addition to this course, districts tend to use a variety of other techniques throughout the high school program on a limited basis. Counseling program s Over one-half of the districts responding made provisions for special counseling of drug offenders. It appears, therefore, that there is a trend to provide counseling aimed specifically at drug offenders in addition to the traditional counselor-student relationship. The use of counseling depended upon the situation but most often was ; 221 not compulsory. The m ost frequent method of counseling was a combination of group and individual counseling with parent involvement. The d is tricts reported that they tried to cooperate with community agencies. The most frequently used community agencies in drug counseling were family counseling, community health agencies, and private clinics. School districts appeared to be interested in all types of counseling as a non-punitive alternative in drug abuse prevention. Attitudes of students compared with responses from districts A study of disciplinary, educational, and counseling p rac tices in relation to student attitudes was conducted. Four schools at an intolerant attitude extrem e were compared with four others at a tolerant extrem e. The chi-square table of significance was used to compare these schools, and it was found that none of the adm inistra tive, educational, or counseling practices was significantly related to the attitudes of students. However, because of the somewhat crude and subjective use of the data, the investigators believe that a m ore thorough investigation of this area might reveal significant relation ships between student attitudes and adm inistrative, educational, and counseling practices. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Drug abuse in recent years has become a serious problem among youth. In response to public concern, the schools have attempted to lim it drug abuse with a variety of disciplinary and instructional efforts. The subject of this study has been the attitudes of students, certificated staff, and trustees toward the role of the school in reducing drug abuse. Statement of the problem The purpose of the study was to discover and analyze the attitudes toward drug abuse and the role of the school in selected suburban high school and unified school d istricts in southern Califor nia. More specifically, an answer was sought to the following ques tion: What are the attitudes of students, certificated personnel, and trustees toward the relationship of the schools to the problem of drug abuse? 222 223 Significance of the problem To be effective, school efforts to reduce drug abuse must take into account the range of attitudes toward the school's relation ship to the problem. These attitudes are closely related to drug abuse itself. With the many demands upon the resources of the schools, realistic objectives are essential to the success of drug abuse control efforts. Schools must decide what can be done and con centrate on those objectives. Hypotheses for the study Seven hypotheses were formulated to investigate differences in group attitudes toward drug abuse and the schools. The first hypothesis was the most important and encompassing. Stated as null, it held that no significant differences in attitude exist among students, certificated personnel, and trustees with respect to the statement: The efforts of the schools to reduce drug abuse have been appropriate and effective. Procedures An attitude survey instrum ent was developed from a survey of the literature, consultation with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Narcotics Bureau and other persons informed on the subject of drug abuse, and from the experiences of the investigators with numerous instances of drug abuse by students. This instrum ent was revised 224 through several stages, including factoral analysis of a pilot study of ninety students and thirty adults. The final instrum ent consisted of fifty items calling for responses on a five-point scale of agreem ent- disagreem ent. This instrum ent was adm inistered to a sample of 631 students in 11 different high schools, 97 trustees, and 101 certifi cated personnel. A questionnaire was also sent to the high school and unified districts of Los Angeles County to obtain information about the disciplinary, counseling, and educational efforts of these districts to control drug abuse. The results of the attitude survey were put on punch cards for computer input. Means, standard deviations, and correlation m atrices were computed for the student, certificated, and trustee groups. Two factor analyses were made of the data, one for only the student responses and one for the combined student, certificated, and trustee responses. Six factors were defined for further comparison, although the last two of these were considered subsidiary to Factor A and were so interpreted in the summation and conclusions. Analysis of variance and the Duncan Range test were also run by computer for the comparison of students by school membership. The item responses of the student, certificated, and trustee groups were compared by one-way analysis of variance and the Tukey 2 25 test of significant difference between ranked means. Factor means for these groups and their subgroups were compared by two-way analysis of variance without replication, the Duncan Range test, and intr a - item correlation. The results of the questionnaire on d istrict drug abuse con trol program s were tabulated. Those districts that were also selected for the student sample were compared with the attitudinal rankings of the schools by categorizing the questionnaire responses and testing for significant relationships between the school attitudes and the responses. The chi-square, four-fold table of significance was used for the comparison. Assumptions The following assumptions were basic to this study: 1. It was assumed that the attitude survey instrum ent was valid in reflecting the true attitudes of the respondents with respect to the factors determined to constitute the attitudes toward drug abuse and the school. 2. It was assumed that the responses to the d istrict p rac tices questionnaire accurately represented the efforts of the districts in attempting to lim it drug abuse. 226 Limitations The following were lim itations of the study: 1. There was some self-selection in the trustee sample. 2. Some districts were unwilling to participate in the study, thus limiting the response on the d istrict practices questionnaire and the size of the trustee and certificated samples. 3. The limitations imposed by Education Code section 10901 prevented asking some questions of students that would have been helpful in assessing their attitudes. 4. Some certificated staff and trustees were reluctant to speculate on the degree of drug abuse among students. Delimitations The following were delimitations of the study: 1. Requests for participation were sent only to unified and high school districts in Los Angeles County. 2. The study included eleven high schools selected from suburban districts surrounding Los Angeles, California. 3. No attempt was made to validate existing drug abuse control program s in term s other than student attitudes. 227 Review of the L iterature The review of the literature provided a background for the development of the attitude survey instrument. The review included six m ajor areas: (1) a description of the drugs liable to abuse, (2) drug use patterns, (3) contributing factors to drug abuse, (4) continuing research on drug abuse, (5) the control of drug abuse, and (6) a review of existing drug abuse educational and adm inistra tive practices. A common theme throughout the literature was a belief in the need for research in all aspects of the drug abuse prob lem. It appeared from the review that the prim ary function of the school is in the development and implementation of program s that are preventive in design. No one program of drug education has been shown to produce significantly better results than any other. Most authorities agree that flexible school disciplinary policies should be developed to allow for alternative dispositions of drug abuse instances. Selected Findings The prelim inary findings leading to subdivision of the student and certificated groups in comparison of the factor means are omitted from this summary but were summarized in the last section of Chapter IV. The group comparisons for factors E and F have not been included because of the unique aspects of their factor loadings, 228 discussed in die first section of Chapter IV. Group com parisons for Combined Factors have not been included because the results paralleled those of Factor A. The attitudinal findings that follow are presented in the order of the group differences asserted in the hypotheses in Chapter I. The last section sum m arizes the disciplinary, counseling, and educational practices reported by school districts. Student, certificated, and trustee groups The findings for these groups are arranged by factor. Representative item findings are included to illustrate the meaning of the factors. These are followed by a comparison of the group factor means. Factor A: Propriety of D eterrents. --Representative item findings were the following: 1. There were no significant differences among students, certificated, and trustees in their disagreem ent with the expulsion of on-campus drug users. 2. T rustees and certificated agreed significantly m ore with the expulsion of on-campus drug sellers than the stu dents did. The student mean was in the disagreem ent range. 3. Trustees agreed significantly more than certificated 229 with school intervention in off-campus drug offenses. Certificated agreed significantly more than students. The student mean was in the disagreem ent range. 4. Trustees and certificated agreed significantly m ore than students with the schools' referral of on-campus drug offenders to the police. 5. Trustees agreed significantly more than certificated and students that the laws relating to drug abuse are not too severe. 6. Trustees and certificated agreed significantly m ore than students that the use of marijuana is dangerous to one's health. Only the student mean was in the disagreem ent range. 7. Trustees and certificated agreed significantly m ore than students that use of marijuana may lead to the use of other drugs. 8. Trustees and certificated agreed significantly more than students that drugs do not help a person toward self- understanding. The means of the three groups for the seventeen items included in Factor A were shown by two-way analysis of variance to differ significantly. The trustees and certificated formed one homo 230 geneous set and agreed significantly more than the students that the efforts of the schools to reduce drug abuse have been appropriate. Further analysis of differences within the certificated and student groups, however, revealed significant differences. When these subgroups were compared with each other and with the trustees, the differences among all groups were: T r BA Te Cs DA SI SNI 2.28 2.31 2.41 2.64 2.66 2.78 3.10 T rustees, building adm inistrators, and teachers agreed most with the propriety of disciplinary deterrents and did not differ significantly among them selves. The counselors and d istrict adm inistrators agreed significantly less than the trustees and building adm inistrators and were not significantly different from the students who indicated a course including instruction in the dangers of drugs. The students not indicating a course were significantly different from other groups. Significance of differences among all groups was . 001. Reliability of F was . 970. Items 19, 20, 21, 38, and 40 all related to the dangers of drug abuse and had been originally expected to load on Factor E. All of these items correlated highly with the items relating to deterrents and loaded on Factor A, instead. 231 Factor B : Effectiveness of Control Efforts. --R epresentative item findings were the following: 1. T rustees agreed significantly m ore than students and certificated that teaching about the effects of drugs prevents the use of drugs. 2. T rustees agreed significantly more than certificated and students that a student active in school affairs is not as likely to experiment with drugs. 3. Students agreed significantly more than certificated that stric t school discipline prevents students from using or selling drugs on campus. Only the student mean was in the agreem ent range. 4. T rustees and certificated agreed significantly m ore than students that stric t enforcement of drug laws would reduce drug abuse. The means of the student, certificated, and trustee groups for the nine item s in Factor B were shown by two-way analysis of variance not to differ significantly; however, when the subgroup differences were considered, overall F significance increased to .05, with a reliability of .923. The differences that existed among groups were: 232 T r BA SI Te DA SNI Cs 2.92 3.05 3.13 3.16 3.19 3.28 3.46 The trustees and counselors were significantly different when the counselors were no longer averaged with the other certificated groups. The building adm inistrators and trustees were now closest, rather than students and trustees as previously when the building adm inistrators had been averaged with the other certificated. Factor C: Extent of Abuse. - -Representative item findings were the following: 1. Students, certificated, and trustees all estim ated about 20 per cent of students in secondary schools had experi mented with drugs. 2. Students estim ated a significantly higher rate than trustees and certificated for frequent drug use by students (once or twice per week). All estim ated below 10 per cent. The means of the student, certificated, and trustee groups for the four estim ates of drug abuse in Factor C were shown not to differ significantly; however, when subgroup differences were con sidered, overall F significance increased to .05, with a reliability of . 986. The differences among groups were: 233 DA T r Cs Te BA SNI SI 1.70 1.88 1.97 2.13 2.17 2.31 2.31 The d istrict adm inistrators estim ated a rate of drug abuse signifi cantly below that of the student estim ates. Factor D: Individual Responsibility. - -Representative item findings were the following: 1. T rustees and certificated agreed significantly m ore than students that adults who strongly oppose drug abuse do understand the problems of young people. The student mean was in the disagreem ent range. 2. Trustees and certificated agreed significantly m ore than students that student-adult conflicts are not a contribut ing cause to student drug abuse. The means of the three groups for the four items included in Factor D were shown by analysis of variance to have a significant difference overall of . 01. The trustees and certificated formed one homogeneous set and agreed significantly m ore than the students that drug abusers are individually responsible for their decisions to use drugs. When subgroup differences were considered, the results were: BA DA T r Cs Te SI SNI 2.10 2.17 2.17 2.20 2.26 2.75 2.88 234 Adults w ere homogeneous in agreeing significantly more than students with the factor, except for an overlap between teachers and course students. The overlap was barely significant and occurred because of the relatively g reater disagreem ent between extrem es. Overall significance of differences was .01. Age groups Since there was a possibility that the differences between students and the other two groups might have been caused by age differences, a separate comparison was made with the three groups classified by age. Factor A: Propriety of D eterrents. --Significance of differ ences among all groups was . 001. Adults in the 41+ and 31-40 age groups were homogeneous and agreed significantly m ore than either student group with the factor. Students in the 15-17 and 18-20 age groups were also significantly different from each other, with the 15-17 group m ore in agreem ent with the factor. F actor B : Effectiveness of Control Efforts. - -Overall signifi cance of differences among groups was . 05. All groups disagreed that control efforts have been effective. The 41+, 31-40, and 15-17 age group means were homogeneous, but so were the 31-40, 15-17, and 18-20 age group m eans. Only the 41+and the 18-20 group means were significantly different, with the older group disagreeing less ! 235 with the factor. Factor C: Extent of Abuse. - -Overall significance of differ ences among groups was . 025. The 41+ group estim ated about 7 per cent as an average for all item s. The average for each of the other groups was between 11 and 16 per cent. The 41+ group differed significantly from all but the 31-40 group. The 31-40 group did not differ significantly from either of the student groups. Factor D: Individual Responsibility. - -Overall significance of differences among groups was . 001. Adults were one homogeneous set, students another. The adults agreed significantly more with the factor. Certificated groups Factor A: Propriety of D eterrents. - -Building adm inistrators and teachers formed one homogeneous set; counselors and d istrict adm inistrators formed another. The building adm inistrators and teachers were more in agreement with the factor. Factor B : Effectiveness of Control Efforts. - -The counselors were significantly less in agreement with the factor than were the other three groups. Factor C: Extent of Abuse. --D istrict adm inistrators estim ated significantly lower rates of abuse than the teachers and building adm inistrators. Counselors did not differ significantly from 236 any group. Factor D: Individual Responsibility. - -The certificated groups were one homogeneous set and agreed with the factor. Adults with and without school-age children Adults with children of school age differed significantly from other adults on Factor C. Adults with children estim ated a signifi cantly (. 05) higher rate of drug abuse among high school students. There were no significant differences on factors A, B, and D. Students indicating and not indicating a course including instruction in the dangers of drugs These students differed significantly (. 001) on Factor A. The difference declined to . 10 significance on Factor B. The means on Factor C were nearly identical; the means on Factor D were not significantly different. Parental status Students living with both parents differed from other students; significantly (.01) on Factor A. The differences on factors B and C were . 10 significance. Differences on Factor D were not close to significance. The differences on all factors were dependent upon sm all, system atic differences in item means, the students living with 237 both parents being consistently more in agreement with adults. There were only four items out of the forty-one with individual significance. School membership In addition to comparisons by analysis of variance, the student attitudes at each school were correlated with additional descriptive data and with the percentage of students indicating instruc tion on dangers of drugs. The findings were as follows: 1. Differences in attitudes among schools, as indicated by the school means for each factor, were significant at . 001 for factors A, B, and C. Differences on Factor D were not significant. 2. Student disciplinary expectancies for drug abuse viola tions formed a common pattern among the schools. No individual disciplinary m easure correlated significantly with attitudes on any factor. 3. Age of the student samples, when ranked by school, correlated significantly with factors A, B, and D. The older student samples were less in agreement with these factors. There was no significant relationship between age and estim ated rates of drug abuse on Factor C. 4. The number of students indicating a course including instruction on the dangers of drugs, when ranked by 238 percentage responding at each school, correlated significantly with mean school attitudes on factors A and B. There was no significant relationship with factors C or D. 5. The number of students living with both parents, when ranked by percentage at each school, did not correlate significantly with any factor. 6. Other student variables that did not show a significant relationship to attitudes were sex and the number of years the student had lived in his present home. D istrict practices The following findings were derived from the questionnaire on d istrict practices in the areas of discipline, counseling, and instruction as each related to the d istricts' efforts to reduce drug abuse. 1. Three out of twenty-one districts reported using expulsion as a disciplinary m easure. 2. Thirteen out of twenty-one districts reported flexible school disciplinary practices with more than one individual responsible for the disciplinary action on drug abuse offenses. Some type of counseling was mentioned by fifteen out of twenty-one school d istricts as the most effective non- punitive m easure in cases of drug abuse. Fourteen school districts out of twenty-one indicated that suspension was the most commonly used m easure to discipline first offenders. Thirteen school districts out of twenty-one reported more severe disciplinary m easures than suspension if the seriousness of the offense warranted. D istricts mentioned preventive m easures twenty-eight tim es as compared with ten mentions of control m eas ures as methods of limiting drug abuse. Nineteen districts reported that a course in drug educa tion was included in the tenth-grade curriculum . Thirteen out of twenty-one districts reported that drug instruction was in social studies classes. Eleven districts reported drug instruction in health and safety classes. Eleven d istricts reported provision of special counseling for drug offenders. When the presence or absence of reported practices was compared with the ranking of student attitudes in those 240 districts where a student sample was taken, no signifi cant relationship was revealed between student attitudes and the presence or absence of any of the reported practices. Conclusions In Chapter I seven hypotheses were stated with respect to the differences among various groups in their attitudes toward the follow ing statement: The efforts of the schools to reduce drug abuse have been appropriate and effective. The first seven subsections of the conclusions have as their subjects the differences among the groups with respect to a hypothesis and its component factors. The last subsection relates the conclusions about group attitudes to the findings on district practices. Student, certificated, and trustee groups The null hypothesis of no significant differences among the student, certificated, and trustee groups in their attitudes toward the propriety and effectiveness of school efforts to reduce drug abuse is rejected. The differences in attitude toward propriety are most pro nounced between the students who did not indicate instruction in the ! 241 dangers of drugs (no-course students) and the remaining subgroups. Even so, the course students, d istrict adm inistrators, and counselors agreed significantly less with these m easures than did the building adm inistrators and trustees. Building adm inistrators and trustees were most convinced that the m easures the schools have been taking are necessary and proper. Specific points of disagreem ent among the groups are the use of expulsion, school intervention in off-campus offenses, and the referra l of on-campus offenders to the police. Students are less concerned about the dangers of drug experimentation, particularly in the case of m arijuana, than are the certificated and trustees. The high correlation of perception of danger with the need for punitive deterrents suggests that this is a fundamental difference in attitude. The direction of the relationship, however, is not clear: attitudes toward drug dangers and attitudes toward school discipline, law enforcement, or simply "authority" may arise from a wider set of values and perceptions. Attitudes toward the effectiveness of drug abuse control efforts are mixed. T rustees at one extrem e are persuaded that a well-informed student actively involved in school affairs is not likely to abuse drugs. Counselors are least convinced, but d istrict admin- ; istra to rs and teachers also question the effectiveness of the preven- : 242 tive m easures that schools have taken. Students, even the no-course students, are m ore convinced than the trustees, and significantly m ore convinced than the certifi cated, that strict school discipline is an effective deterrent to on- campus drug abuse. The positions are reversed in the case of law enforcement: the students do not believe that harsher laws or stric te r enforcement would effectively reduce abuse, while the certifi cated and trustees place faith in this to a g reater degree. Although they are not as concerned about the dangers of drug abuse, the students estim ate a significantly higher rate of frequent abuse than do the certificated and trustees. Students are also much more inclined to attribute the extent of drug abuse to social unrest, the generation gap, or the p ressures of living. Age groups The null hypothesis of no significant differences among age groups in attitude toward the propriety and effectiveness of school efforts is rejected. Age differences could have been a significant influence in attitudinal differences between students and the certificated and trustee groups on Factor A. Age differences could not have account ed for the differences on factors B and C. It seem s likely that age was a m ajor influence in the differences on Factor D. In other j 243 words, the age difference probably is an element in the perception of drug dangers and consequent need for drastic counterm easures. At the same tim e, adults see the practice of drug abuse as an individ ual act for which the abuser is responsible. Students look upon drug abuse as much less serious and in some instances, at least, not even deliberate. Adults with and without school-age children The null hypothesis of no significant difference between these groups is sustained. Differences between the groups on factors A and B were not significant. Whether a trustee or certifi cated person has children of school age does not appear to influence his attitude toward the relationship of the school to drug abuse. Certificated groups The null hypotheses of no significant differences among the certificated groups in attitudes toward the propriety and effectiveness of school efforts is rejected. Building adm inistrators and teachers believe m ore strongly than counselors and d istrict adm inistrators that the deterrent m eas- ; ures the schools have been taking are appropriate. Counselors believe much less than the other groups that the m easures have been effective. D istrict adm inistrators see the rate of abuse as signifi 244 cantly less than do the building adm inistrators and teachers. Only on the issue of individual responsibility do the four groups agree: all share, with the trustees, the view that drug abuse is discretionary and the drug abuser is, therefore, responsible for his decision. Students indicating and not indicating instruction on dangers of drugs The null hypothesis of no significant differences between these groups in attitude toward the propriety and effectiveness of school drug abuse reduction efforts is rejected. The most pronounced difference between course and no- course students is on the question of propriety of deterrents and the dangers of drug abuse. The differences expressed on the attitude survey were significant on fifteen of the seventeen items. The course students consistently expressed a viewpoint more in harmony with the adults on these item s. Course students also attach m ore value to the use of school discipline as an effective deterrent, more than either adults or the other students. Although they are not as convinced as the trustees in the value of information as a deterrent, they are m ore convinced than the certificated and the no-course students that the efforts of the schools have been effective. On the questions of the degree of drug abuse and the respon- : 245 sibility for drug abuse, however, the course students do not differ from the no-course students. The reason for the differences between course and no-course students is not readily apparent. The obvious explanation is that the students who have had instruction on the dangers of drugs are influenced by the information they receive and are, therefore, more inclined to look upon drug abuse as a threat to society warranting stric t deterrent m easures. This would explain, too, the lack of significant differences on factors C and D, where the question of danger was not at issue. If information on dangers of drugs is the explanation, it still does not exclude the possibility that the course students are simply more receptive to the instruction they receive and are m ore able, or m ore inclined, to recall that they have received such instruction. If information, then, is not the full explanation and the cause lies with some undefined variable, it would seem that the logical assumption for this variable would be random distribution among the sample schools. Conclusions concerning the differences among schools bear on this assumption. Parental status The null hypothesis of no significant differences in attitude between students living with both parents and students living with 246 adults other than both parents is rejected. As with the course and no-course students, the differences between the two-parent and other students are chiefly with respect to the propriety of deterrents. Unlike the course, no-course student differences, the parental groups differ only on a few individual issues. The significance of their difference lies with a diffused inclination of students living with both parents to agree m ore than other students with the adult point of view. Although there is a difference in attitude that varies with parental status, it is much less clearly defined than the course, no-course difference. School membership The null hypothesis of no attitudinal differences among students according to school membership is rejected. In the survey of eleven schools, the samples differed signifi cantly on factors A, B, and C at the . 001 probability. Only on Factor D were the students united in their belief that the drug abuse problem is m ore than an individual m atter. Of the variables describing the student sam ples, age of the students and whether they indicated instruction on the dangers of drugs related significantly to the attitudes expressed by the students. The younger students are more inclined to see school disciplinary deterrents as appropriate and effective. Although the total sample 247 of students did not show significant differences between schools on Factor D, the age of the students did correlate significantly with this factor, an indication that the younger students are less alienated from the adult point of view. The most significant relationship was between the percentage of students indicating instruction in the dangers of drugs and the attitude rank of the school. The relationship was significant for both factors A and B. Variables that did not relate significantly to school attitudes w ere the disciplinary expectancies of the students, the sex of the students, whether the students were living with both parents, and the number of years the students had lived in their present homes. In the discussion of the differences between course and no course students in an e a rlier paragraph, the question of random distribution of student inclination to indicate a course was tabled. In the light of significant correlation of the course variable with the varying attitudes of the schools, there is reason to suspect that the distribution is not random. It is still possible that students may indicate receiving instruction for some reason other than having received a well-organized and effectively presented unit on the dan g ers of drugs. In the absence of information to the contrary, how ever, the obvious explanation of attitudinal differences among the 248 schools seem s the best explanation: the instruction the students receive concerning the dangers of drugs does have a bearing on their attitudes, although it undoubtedly contends with other variables, such as parental status, in specific instances. Relationship of reported district practices to attitudes expressed on the attitude survey The following conclusions resulted from comparison of the attitudinal responses of students, certificated, and trustees with the information returned on the district practices questionnaire: 1. The reluctance to use expulsion as a disciplinary m easure expressed on the attitude survey is confirmed by the practices of the districts. 2. D istricts have flexible disciplinary practices in drug abuse instances; however, the student expectancies for disciplinary response in drug abuse cases are fairly consistent from school to school, suggesting that the disciplinary practices are not as varied as adm inistra tors believe. 3. Suspension is the most common disciplinary m easure for first offenders. This is confirmed by the expectancies of the students. 249 4. Counseling is the most frequent non-punitive m easure used; however, certificated personnel, and counselors in particular, express skepticism concerning the m easures currently being taken to reduce drug abuse. Possibly the amount of counseling was overstated, or the kind of counseling is not what counselors believe effective. 5. D istricts have initiated a variety of non-punitive m eas ures aimed specifically at drug offenders. Yet, of the adult groups, the counselors and the d istrict adm inistra to rs, who were the questionnaire respondents, express the least faith in the effectiveness of the m easures being taken by the schools. It may be that some of these program s were initiated without much hope of their effectiveness but as a concession to trustee interest and public concern generally. There are schools, however, where student attitudes suggest that some of these pro gram s have been successful. 6. D istricts tend to concentrate drug abuse instruction in the tenth-grade social studies or health and safety class. Continued instruction spanning several years does not appear to be common. Recommendations 250 The following recommendations are based upon the results of this study as sum m arized in the findings and conclusions of this chapter: 1. The relationship of instruction to drug abuse attitudes should be investigated thoroughly by use of pretesting and posttesting with a variety of class sizes and instructional methods. The attitudes of students at different schools should be tested for significant relationship to differing features of school educational and other drug abuse control efforts. 2. Instruction on drugs and drug abuse should be incorpor ated, where relevant, in courses from middle elem en tary grade levels through high school, and less reliance should be placed upon defined units in concentrated time periods. These units should not be abolished, however, since many appear to have been effective. 3. Schools should capitalize on the receptiveness of the m ajority of students to dispassionate, factual instruc tion on drugs. Ample opportunity for student reaction and interaction should be provided as part of the instruc tion. 251 4. A specific person in each d istrict should be assigned responsibility to inform the staff and trustees routinely of new developments in drug abuse research. The medium of information should be ordinarily a concise bulletin worded in clear, layman’s language. 5. Teachers of courses including factual instruction on the dangers of drugs should be required to attend regular in-service or other classes to keep abreast of drug research. 6. School d istricts should have policies and procedures clearly defining the disciplinary actions that may be expected in cases of on-campus drug violations. These policies and procedures should be publicized thoroughly to both students and parents and should be firm ly and consistently enforced. 7. School d istricts should reevaluate carefully any existing policies requiring disciplinary action in cases of drug abuse not involving the school directly. 8. School d istricts should continue to maintain a coopera tive relationship with law enforcement agencies in drug abuse cases involving the school. 9. Responsible regulatory agencies should study carefully 252 the relationship of drug attitudes to the claim s adver tised as positive benefits of drug use--exam ples are sleeping tablets and tranquilizers. BIBLIOGRAPHY 253 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books 1. Blommers, Paul, and Lindquist, E. F. Elem entary Statistical Methods in Psychology and Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 19o0. 2. Chein, I . ; G erard, D. L .; Lee, R. S .; and Rosenfeld, E. The Road to H. New York: Basic Books, 1964. 3. Conover, W. J. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1971. 4. De Ropp, Robert S. The M ater Game: Beyond the Drug Experi ence. New York: Delocorte Press, 1968. 5. Edwards, Allen L. Experimental Design in Psychological R esearch. New York: Rinehart and Company, 1960. 6. ________ . Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Rinehart and Company, 1954. 7. F orte, Joel. The Pleasure Seekers. New York: Bobbs-Merrell Company, 1969. 8. Good, C arter V ., ed. Dictionary of Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959. 9. Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. 10. K erlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral R esearch. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1966. 11. Lindesmith, A. The Addict and the Law. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1965. 254 255 12. Mauren, David, and Victor, Vogel. Narcotics and Narcotic Addiction. Springfield, M assachusetts: Charles C. Thomas, 1954. 13. Sebold, Hans. Adolescence: A Sociological Analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968. 14. Steel, Robert G. D ., and T orrie, James H. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. 15. W ebsters Third New International Dictionary. Springfield, M assachusetts: M errim an Company, 1968. 16. Williams, John B. N arcotics. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Company, 1963. Newspaper A rticles 17. "Gallup Poll: M arijuana Tried by 10 Million in the U. S. " Los Angeles T im es, October 26, 1969, p. 4. 18. "Thirty Students Expelled over Drugs Reinstated. " Los Angeles T im es, January 12, 1969, p. 2. Periodicals 19. American Association of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation. "Facts on Drugs. " Today*s Education, February 1971, pp. 34-35. 20. Davis, Roy L. "Status of Smoking Education Research. " Journal of School Health, XXXVIII (June 1968), 323-332. 21. G erard, D. L . , and Kornetsky, C. "Adolescent Opiate Addic tion; A Study of Control and Addict Subjects. " Psychiatric Q uarterly, III (1955), 457-486. 22. H ollester, William G. "Why Adolescents Drive and Use Drugs. " PTA Magazine, March 1969, pp. 2-5. 256 23. Jordan, Clifford W. "A Drug Abuse Project. " Journal of School Health, XXXVIII (December 1968), 693-695. 24. Likert, Rensis. "Technique for the M easurement of Attitudes. " Archives of Psychology, XXII, No. 140 (June 1932), 5-55. 25. Randall, H arriet B. "Patterns of Drug Abuse in School Age Children. " Journal of School Health, XV (June 1970), 296. 26. Sharoff, Robert L. "Character Problems and Their Relationship to Drug Abuse. " American Journal of Psychoanalysis, XXIX (1969), 186. 27. "Today's Education. " Journal of the National Education Asso ciation, LX, No. 2 (February 1971), 34. 28. Woodring, Paul. "Drugs and the Generation Gap. " Saturday Review of L iteratu re, October 18, 1969, pp. 86-88. 29. Yablonski, Lewis. "Kids Don't See Use of Drugs as Sick, Illegal. " Today's Child, XVII, No. 16 (1968). Public Documents 30. California. State Department of Education. A Study of More Effective Education Relative to Narcotics" Other Harmful Drugs and Hallucinogen in Substances. Sacramento: Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1970. 31. _________. Drug Abuse. Sacramento: Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1967. 32. _________. State Department of Justice, Division of Law Enforce ment. Drug A rrests and Disposition in California. Sacra mento: Bureau of Crim inal Statistics, 1969. 33. Division of Administrative Services Attendance and Welfare. Administrative Guidelines for Disciplinary Policy Review. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, 1968. 257 34. G ross, Jack E. Respect for Drugs. Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, Department of Justice. Washington, D. C .: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1968. 35. Los Angeles County D istrict Attorneys Office. Drug Abuse and the Law. Los Angeles: County of Los Angeles Duplicating Bureau, 1969. 36. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Narcotics and Drug Abuse. Washington, D. C .: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967. 37. Roberts, Chester F. The Juvenile Drug Offenders Project. Sacramento, California: Department of the Youth Authority, Division of Research, 1960. 38. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Answers to the Most Frequently Asked Questions about Drug Abuse. Washington, D. C .: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1970. 39. ________ . L. S. D .; Some Questions and Answers. Washington, D. C .: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1969. 40. ________ . Marijuana; Some Questions and Answers. Washing ton, D. C .: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1970. 41. ________ . Narcotics; Some Questions and Answers. Washing ton, D. C .: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1970. 42. ________ . Narcotics; Some Questions and Answers. Washing ton, D. C .: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1969. 43. ________ . Recent Research on Narcotics, L.S. D ., M arijuana, and Other Dangerous Drugs. Washington, D. C .: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1970. 44. ________ . Sedatives; Some Questions and Answers. Washing ton, D. C .: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1970. 45. ________ . The Up and Down Drugs, Amphetamines and Barbitu- rates. Washington, D. C .: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1970. 258 Published Reports 46. Blum, Richard H. Mind Altering Drugs and Dangerous Behavior; Dangerous Drugsl Task Force Report, President's Com- m ission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Washington, D. C .: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967. 47. ________ . Mind Altering Drugs and Dangerous Behavior; Narcotics. Task Force Report, President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Washing ton, D. C .: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967. Unpublished M aterials 48. Blum, Richard H ., and Braunstein, L. "A Pilot Study of Normal Population Drug Use. " Unpublished study conducted in two West Coast Metropolitan areas, 1965. 49. Bogg, Richard A .; Smith, Roy G .; and Russell, Susan D. "Drugs and Michigan High School Students. " Paper p re sented to Special House Committee on Narcotics, Michigan House of Representatives, Lansing, Michigan, 1968. 50. Geis, Gilbert, and Morgan, Edward. "Education Regarding Abuse of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. " Unpublished research properties, Southern California Research Institute, Los Angeles, California, September 1, 1967. 51. Haefner, Don P. "The Use of F ear Arousal in Dental Health Education. " Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association, New York, 1964. 52. Haroian, L. "Adolescent Drug Use. ” Paper presented to class in Critique of Research, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1970. 53. Richards, Louise G. "Government Programs and Psychological Principles in Drug Abuse Education. " Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, Washington, D. C ., August 31-September 4, 1969. 259 54. Yolles, Stanley F. "LSD, Marijuana and other Dangerous Drugs. " Statement presented to United States Senate Judicial Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, Washington, D. C ., March 6, 1968. Other Sources 55. Economic Consultants. "Apartment Rental Survey. " A sub scription service provided by Economic Consultants, In c ., 10203 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90067. 56. Michael, William B. Personal interview, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, March 1971. 57. Security Pacific National Bank. Miscellaneous information on file with Economic Research Division, 561 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, California. 58. W estern Economic Research Company. Unpublished prelim inary computer runs of 1970 U. S. Census. W estern Economic Research Company, 13437 Ventura Boulevard, Sherman Oaks, California 91403. APPENDICES 260 APPENDIX A LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL OPINION AND SUBCOMMITTEE LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT 261 B ERN A RD C Z E 9L A C H IE F D E PU T Y J . G O llb O O W E N K. K U H * R a y H . W h i t a k e r K e n t L. D c C h a m b e a u E r n e s t H . K u n z i S T A N L E Y M . L O U R IM O R e S h e r w i n c . M a c k e n z i e . J r . E D W A R O F . N O W A K E D W A R D K . P U R C E L L PR IN C IPA L D EPU TIES A N N M . M A C K E Y DEPUTY IN CH A RSE L O S ANOCLES O PPIC E 3 0 2 1 s t a t e C a p i t o l S a c r a m e n t o © S B 1 4 1 1 0 S t a t e b u i l d i n g L o s A n g e l e s 9 0 0 1 2 ^legislattta Counsel of California G E O R G E H. M U RPH Y Sacramento, California July 1, 1969 Honorable William Campbell Assembly Chamber Questionnaires - #12074 Dear Mr. Campbell: FACTS An educator desires to submit a questionnaire on attitudes towards dangerous drugs to high school stu dents as a part of his doctorate degree program. The questionnaire, a copy of which you have submitted to us, consists of 77 questions relating to the students' knowl edge of drug use, causes and effects of drug use, enforce ment of present laws on use of drugs, and treatment of drug users by school authorities. The questionnaire re quests the pupil to indicate whether he strongly agrees, agrees, is undecided, disagrees, or strongly disagrees’ with such statements as the following: "29. The police are trying to enfoce [sic] the drug abuse laws but the courts will not back them up. "30. A minor caught pushing drugs should be punished as severely as an adult. "31. If misuse of drugs were not bad, it wouldn't be against the law. "32. Laws dealing with drugs and marijuana are too severe and should be changed. "33. If school authorities really wanted to, they could stop the misuse of drugs by stu dents at school or at school events. G e r a l d R o o t A d a m e M a r t i n L . a n d c h e o n C a r l M . A r n o l d J a m e s L . a * h i o r d J E i t R r L . B a s s e t t L'O W ARO O cnS H A T E K V J o h n c o r z i n e C l i n t o n J . o e W i t t R o b e r t c u l i c n D u f f y C a r l A. E r i k s o n . Ilf A l b e r t o V . E s t i v a L a w r e n c e H . F e i n J o h n F . f o s s c t t e H a r v e y J . F o s t e r B i o n M . G r e g o r y R o b e r t D . g r o n k e F r a n k a . J c l i n c m L . D o u g l a s K i n n e y V i c t o r K o z i e l s k i A l l e n r . l i n k E u g e n e W . M c C a b e C l a r k g . M a l o n e y R o s e O l i v e r T R A C Y O . P O W E L L . II M a r g u e r i t e R o t h C A R E Y W . R O Y S T E R M a r y S h a w R o y K . S i m m o n s R u s s e l l L . s p a r l i n g J o h n T . S t u o e o a r e r J a m e s E . W a o l e i g h B R IA N L . W A L K U P T h o m a s D . W h e l a n J i m m i e W i n g D EPU TIES 262 Honorable William Campbell - p. 2 - #12074 "73- People should be allowed to take drugs, or use marijuana if they want to, since they are only harming themselves. "74. Most ‘pushers' and users of drugs are never caught. "75- Most adults don't realize how much drugs and marijuana are used by young people. "7 6. As a parent, I would permit my son or daughter to experiment with dangerous drugs. "77. I would approve of my younger brother or sister taking drugs." The questionnaire defines "dangerous drugs" to include inhaling glue, gasoline or similar substances; smoking marijuana; taking pills such as "reds," "whites," "rainbows"; taking LSD, mescaline, "speed"; taking "hard" narcotics such as heroin, cocaine. No questionnaire will be identified by the name of the respondent or by the name of his school. The results of the survey will be used solely as a statistical study. QUESTION You have asked whether the written parental con sent required by Section 10901 of the Education Code must be obtained in order to administer the proposed question naire relating to dangerous drugs in the manner described. OPINION In our opinion the questionnaire will clearly not come within the scope of Section 10901 of the Education Code, if Questions No . 31* 73, 76, and 7 7 are eliminated, and may be administered to pupils without prior written parental consent. ANALYSIS The submission of a questionnaire relating to drugs to public school pupils is subject to the provisions 264 Honorable William Campbell - p. 3 - #12074 of Sections 8504 and 9011 of the Education Code in addition to any requirement of parental consent. These sections require the approval of the governing board of materials submitted to public school pupils and compliance with the governing board's regulations on material related to nar cotics and dangerous drugs. Section 10901 of the Education Code states: "No test, questionnaire, survey, or exam ination containing any questions about the pupil's personal beliefs or practices in sex, family life, morality and religious, or any questions about his parents', or guardians1 beliefs and practices in sex, family life, morality and religion, shall be administered to any pupil in kindergarten or grade 1 through grade 12, inclusive, unless the parent or guard ian of the pupil is notified in writing that such test, questionnaire, survey, or examina tion is to be administered and the parent or guardian of the pupil gives written permission for the pupil to take such test, questionnaire, survey, or examination." This section requires written parental consent in order for a questionnaire about the pupil's or parent's personal beliefs and practices in certain broad categories, i.e., sex, family life, morality and religion to be administered to a pupil in high school. There are no statutory or judi cial definitions or descriptions of these categories. Nor are there any reported decisions applying the provisions of Section 10901. Whether a particular questionnaire would require written consent by the parents of each pupil to which it is to be submitted, turns on the answers to two questions. Does the questionnaire generally or does any question specifically fall into one of the enumerated categories? If it does, is the question or questionnaire directed to the personal beliefs or practices of the pupil or his parents in the enumerated categories? If the answer to either of these questions is negative, written parenLal consent is not required in order to administer the ques tionnaire. The answers to these questions are largely subjective and, ultimately, must be determined by a court. 265 Honorable William Campbell - p. 4 - #12074 In the absence of statutory and judicial direction, we consider the scope of the enumerated categories in Section 10901 which are relevant to the proposed questionnaire to be as follows: Family life - matters concerning the inter relationships of family members, the duties and respon sibilities of the various family members, the obligations and responsibilities of the family unit, the purposes and importance of the family, and behavior required or desired of family members. (See relevant definitions in Webster1s New International Dictionary. 2nd Edition.) Morality - matters concerning principles of excellence in behavior, character, and attitudes and standards of right and wrong and their application and enforcement in human affairs. (See relevant definitions in Webster's New International Dictionary. 2nd Edition.) As we consider the statements in the questionnaire in the light of these categories, we think that only four of the questions could present legal problems. Questions No. 31 and 73 (see Facts above) are close to questions of morality, i.e., questions concerning standards of right and wrong, and we cannot state with certainty that a court would hold that they do not fall within the morality category specified in Section 10901. Similarly, we think that a strong argument could be made that Questions No. 76 and 77 (see Facts above) fall within the family life category, reaching matters concerning "behavior required or desired of family members." Clearly, these two questions are directed at the personal beliefs and practices of the pupil. If these questions were removed, it is our opinion that the questionnaire clearly would not fall into any of the categories specified in Section 10901 and, as so amended,could be administered to pupils without prior written consent of parents. Very truly yours, George H. Murphy Legislative Counsel 0 r V ' • By vaxx C . CV Tv ■'v.vv' Carl A. Erikson, III CAE:eep Deputy Legislative Counsel SACRAMENTO A 00R E 4S ROOM S I 4 S •T A T E C A P IT O L S A C R A M E N T O . C A L IF O R N IA S B 0 I4 T lL S rH O N B i S I S '—4 4 0 . 7 7 0 * DISTRICT OPTICS lO I SOUTH SKCONO 8T RB ST LA P U E N T E . C A L IF O R N IA S I 7 4 4 PH O K BSi * 1 * - > 3 3 0 .4 9 0 S 7 1 4 — 9 8 9 .7 * 1 4 R O N A L O P . B I S O N ADMINISTRATIVE A SSISTA NT JVasemMg California 'pegtalaiitrc EDUCATION HEALTH AMO W S L P A M URBAN A PPA tnS AND HOUSINO JO IN T L r o is l a t i v b COMMITTBB o n h i q h b r e d u c a t io n WILLIAM "BILL" CAM PBELL ASSEMBLYM AN. F IFT IE T H D ISTR IC T The Assembly Sub-Committee on Drugs & Alcoholism is in the process of developing legislation leading to improvement in education relating to drug abuse and to development of effective procedures for combating the problem of drug abuse among students in our schools. As part of this effort, the Cpmmittee is seeking relevant facts and informed opinion from a variety of sources, including the students themselves. Mr. John Mullender, Assistant Principal of La Puente High School, and Mr. Glenn Cook, Assistant Principal of Bassett High School, as a partial fulfillment of their doctoral requirements, have developed a questionnaire and an attitude survey on drug abuse to obtain data from school board members, certificated personnel, and students. Although the Committee did not participate in structuring the attitude survey, this instrument has been reviewed by recognized authorities on drug abuse, including the Consultant to the Committee, and suggested changes have been included. The information from both the questionnaire and the attitude survey will be helpful in resolving the problem before us. I urge you to cooperate in this study of one of the most serious social problems of our youth today. WC/er Sincerely$ V WILLIAM',"BILL1 * \CAMPBE Chairman, Assemoly Sub-Committee on Drugs and Alcoholism 266 APPENDIX B LOS ANGELES COUNTY COUNSEL OPINION AND LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRUSTEES ENDORSEMENT 267 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL © ■ 46 H A L L O F A D M I N I S T R A T I O N L O S A N G E L E S . C A L IF O R N I A 9 0 0 1 2 M A o is o n 9 * 3 0 1 1 J O H N O .M A H A ftO . COUNTV COUNSCU October 16, 1969 Mr. John Mullender 1120 Northwestern Drive Claremont, California 91711 Dear Mr. Mullender: In your letter of October 9, 1969, you posed a ques tion raised by the Los Angeles County Trustees Association's Special Projects Committee, concerning the legality of administering without parental consent an attitude survey and student information questionnaire on drug abuse. After carefully examining the questions on the revised questionnaire, I nave found only one question that would seemingly come within the parental consent requirement of Section 10901 of the California Education Code. The ques tion in point is No. 54 (Revised Questionnaire). If the question mentioned is removed from the question naire, in my opinion it would be lawful to administer the survey without parental consent to students in representa tive nigh schools in Los Angeles County. Very truly yours, JOHN D. MAHARG County Counsel JAmes W. Briggs 'Assistant County Counsel JWB:jac 268 1 9 6 0 - 7 0 M R . JO H N R . A TW A TER PRESIDENT M S SOUTH HELBEHTA REDOMOO BEACH. CALIFORNIA M R . D O N M . W EA V ER VICE-PRESIDENT I I 901 6HADRON OARDKHA. CALIFORNIA M RS. L O U IS E S . H IL L E N B R A N D b x r c e t a r v - t k e a s u a e r t l t o s TRANSAROKM LA PUENTE. CALIFORNIA E X E C U T IV E BO A R D M R . A D RIA N AD AM S N tW H A L L M R . R O B E R T K . B E N S O N BURBANK UNIFIED M R . M O R R IS E W IN O WILLOW SHOOK M R .C .H . O RA H A M FALOS VERDES FENIHSULA UNIFIED M R . HA RRY L . H U F F SAN OASRIEL M R S . B E R N IC E N U TT E R SEVERLT H ILLS UNIFIED M R . R IC H A R D O . LU CK L ITTLE LA RS CITT M RB . V IR G IN IA MACT W HITTIER UNION HIOM M R. D O N M . BA RK ER SOUTH W HITTIER M R . W E S L E Y P . B R IC H E R ANTELOFE VALLEV UNION KISH K X -O F F tC IO M E M B E R S O R . C H A R L E S H . O Z A N IA N BELLFLOW ER UNIFIED FAST PRESIDENT M R . JE R R Y F IN E INSLEWOOO UNIFIED CSBA EXECUTIVE BOARO M R . R O B E R T S T A F F O R D CLAREMONT U N IFIED CSBA EXECUTIVE BOARD C O U N T Y H C P A C B IN T A T IV C 1 D R . FR E D W . B E W L E Y ASSISTANT SU PSRINTSNDENT M R . JA M B S W . B R IG G S BEFUTV COUNTY COUNSEL Los Angeles County School Trustees Association ROOM 9 1 7 . 1 5 5 W E S T W A SH IN G TO N B O U L EV A R D L O S A N G E L E S . C A LIFO R N IA 9 0 0 1 5 October 30, 1969 To: District Superintendents From: Dr. Fred W. Bewley The study in which John Mullender is asking your participation was reviewed by the Executive Committee of the Los Angeles County School Trustees Association, and the Board voted to endorse the study. This endorsement was based on the belief that further knowledge about the attitude of people towards the use of drugs would be of benefit to all school districts. At the request of the Executive Board, Mr. Mullender had his questionnaire reviewed by the Los Angeles County Counsel so that both the Board and Mr. Mullender could be assured that there was no violation of Education Code Section 10901. This assurance was given by the County Counsel in a letter dated October 16, 1969, and signed by James W. Briggs. We hope that school districts will accord Mr. Mullender their cooperation in conducting this study. Sincerely yours, Fred W. Bewley, Secretary LOS ANGELES COUNT! SCHOOL TRUSTEES ASSOCIATION fWB:gg 269 APPENDIX C ATTITUDE SURVEY ON DRUG ABUSE AND ANSWER SHEETS 270 ATTITUDE SURVEY ON DRUG ABUSE by Mullender and Cook The term "dangerous drugs" as used in the questions that follow refers to the commonly misused substances that are sniffed, smoked, swallowed, or injected to obtain a mental or physical condition that is not part of recognized medical, psychological, or scientific treatment. Examples of misused substances included in this definition would be glue, gasoline, marijuana, pills ("reds," "whites," etc.), LSD, mescaline, methedrine ("speed"), heroin, and cocaine. PART I: Mark the answer sheet to indicate the response that most nearly matches your opinion. 1. What proportion of the students in high school do you estimate have experimented with dangerous drugs at least once? (a) one out of twenty (b) one out of ten (c) one out of five (d) one out of three (e) one out of two. 2. What proportion of the students in high school do you estimate use dangerous drugs once or twice a month? (a) one out of twenty (b) one out of ten (c) one out of five (d) one out of three (e) one out of two. 3. What proportion of the students in high school do you estimate use dangerous drugs once or twice a week? (a) one out of twenty (b) one out of ten (c) one out of five (d) one out of three (e) one out of two. I*. What proportion of students in high school do you estimate use drugs daily? (a) one out of twenty (b) one out of ten (c) one out of five (d) one out of three (e) one out of two. PART II: Mark the answer sheet to indicate the response that most nearly matches your opinion. For all of the remaining questions, the letters stand for the follow ing degrees of agreement or disagreement with the statements: A: Strongly agree B: Somewhat agree C: Uncertain D: Somewhat disagree E: Strongly disagree 5. Many people who begin using dangerous drugs do so because they want to be like their friends. 6. Many people get "high" because they are not satisfied with themselves. 7. Students who drop pills do so for the same reasons some other students drink liquor. 8. Persons who use dangerous drugs usually had "hangups" before they started with drugs. 271 272 A: Strongly agree B: Somewhat agree C: Uncertain D: Somewhat disagree E: Strongly disagree 9. Drugs help a person to understand himself better. 10. A person who has tried drugs once is more likely to take drugs the next chance he gets than a person who has never tried drugs. 11. LSD helps people to understand and create better than they could otherwise. 12. People who use LSD do not believe that it is dangerous. 13. Counseling by a psychologist would lead most drug users to stop using drugs. lU. A student who is active in school affairs will probably not experiment with drugs. 15. Many people start using drugs because they are curious about the effects. 16. The best way to keep persons from using drugs is to inform them about the way drugs can affect their health. IT. Frequent users of "reds" (barbiturates) become very ill when they try to stop using this drug. 18. Medical doctors are better qualified to teach about the harmful effects of drugs than ex-addicts are. 19. There is a significant danger to one's health in using marijuana. 20. A person who has used marijuana many times needs more to get "high" than a person who is using it for the first time. 21. Using marijuam Tften leads to the use of other drugs or narcotics. 22. A person who misuses drugs regularly is more likely to catch colds and other diseases than a person who does not misuse drugs. 23. LSD is a dangerous drug to use. 2b. A person buying drugs from a pusher cannot know for sure what the drug is or how strong it is. 25. Education in the effects of drug misuse should be started in elementary school. 26. If a student knows a lot about the effect drugs will have on him, he will probably not use dangerous drugs. 27. Many more students would experiment with drugs if it were not against the law. 273 As Strongly agree B: Somewhat agree C: Uncertain D: Somewhat disagree E: Strongly disagree 28. Drug users often use drugs as a way of protesting against the problems in our society. 29. Adults who strongly oppose the misuse of drugs probably don't understand the problems of young people today. 30. If adults didn't "bug" them, teenagers probably wouldn't misuse drugs so much. 31. The main reason for misuse of drugs by young people is the lack of understanding between students and adults. 32. Most people who use or sell drugs illegally are eventually caught. 33. If a person knows about the laws against drug possession and use, he probably will not risk using drugs. 3k. Strict enforcement of drug laws would greatly reduce misuse of drugs. 35. The penalties for use, possession, or sale of drugs should be more severe. 36. The punishment for a drug pusher should be more severe than for a person who possesses or uses drugs. 37. Far fewer teenagers would push drugs if they were punished as severely as adults when they were caught. 38. A person who starts experimenting with drugs usually goes on to stronger stuff like heroin. 39- A person who misuses drugs should be found out by the authorities as soon as possible. UO. Medical doctors should be allowed to prescribe drugs for addicts. Ul. Laws dealing with the use of drugs and marijuana are too severe. 1+2. Police should not report drug offenders to the schools. 1+3. School authorities should not take disciplinary action against students who have been found guilty of possession of drugs off the school campus. 1+k. School authorities should postpone action in the case of a student accused of violating a drug law until after the court has made a decision on his case. 1+5- School officials should not refer drug offenders to the police. 274 A: Strongly agree B: Somewhat agree C: Uncertain D: Somewhat disagree E: Strongly disagree 1*6. Students known to he involved in the use or sale of drugs away from the school should he allowed to continue at their school as regular students. 1*7. The schools have heen too easy on teenage drug offenders. 1*8. When school officials "crack down," students will not risk selling or using drugs at school. 1*9 ■ A student who has heen found with drugs in his possession or under the influence of drugs on the school grounds should he expelled from school for at least one year. 50. A student who has heen caught selling drugs on the school grounds should be expelled from school for at least one year. 275 8tudent Information Please do not w rite your name on th is answer sheet or on the booklet. Please complete the following Information about yourself: Your Your s e x - - ■ Your grade In «eh<vvi Humber o f years you have lived a t your home address - Including y o u rse lf, th e number of persona liv in g a t home Write the occupation of each person eighteen or older whose main residence la in your home. I f the person la a housewife, student, re tir e d , or unemployed, w rite th a t oe the person's occupation. Include college students or other persons who may be away'from home p art of the time but s t i l l consider your address th e ir home. Use the la s t spaces i f you have more than one brother, s is te r , e tc ., over eighteen and s t i l l at home, or I f someone is not lis te d as a re la tiv e in the spaces above. Main Occupation Part-tim e Father ................ — _ S tepfather .. . Mother Stepmother . — . _. Brother . _ S is te r . Grandfather - . Grandmother - ^ „ Brother-in-law - . 81ster-in-law _ _ _ _ ^ _ _ _ _ _ — — Uncle _ _ Aunt — . Cousin - . . . . . Foster Father _ . — . Foster Mother 276 School Inforaatlon Write the t i t l e o f any course you Have token th a t Included in stru c tio n about dongferous drugs. Also, s ta te vhat grade (7th, 8 th , e tc .) vhen you took the course. Check the action or actions you think the school a u th o ritie s vould probably take in the case of a student caught v lth drugs or under the influence of drugs a t your school. ( ) W o action ( ) Parent conference ( ) Suspension up to tvo veeks ( ) Required special counseling ( ) Expulsion for a seoester ( ) Transfer to another regular high school ( ) Transfer to a continuation school or opportunity school ( ) R eferral to police ( ) Don’t know O ther. C lrcl 1. 2. 3. 1 * . 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. U . 12. 13. ATTITUDE SURVEY ANSWERS th e l e t t e r to Indicate your choice for each question. Please do not v rlte on tha te s t booklet. b c d e b c d e bode b c d e b e d s b e d e bode bode bode b o d e b o d e b o d e bode lb . 15. 16. 17. 18. 19- 20. 21. 22. 23. 2b. 25. 2 6 . b c d e b c ' d e b c d e b c d e b e ds b c d e b c d e b c d e b e d s b c d e b c d e b c d e bode 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3b. 35. 36. 37. 38. b c d e b c d e b c d e bode b c d e b c d e bode b c d e b c d e bode b c d e bode b c d e b c d e b c d e b c d e b c d e be ds 39. bO. 1 *1 . b2. 1*3. UU. 1*5. a b c d e 1*6. a b o d e b c d e 1*8. a b o d e 1*9. a b e d e 50. a b o d e 1*7. 277 C e r tif ic a te d S ta f f - P e r s o n a l Data The purpose o f th e q u e stio n s im m ediately below Is to p ro v id e d a ta fo r c o r r e la tio n w ith a t t l t u d i n a l resp o n ses In d ic a te d fo r th e a t t i t u d e survey on drug abuse. Answers t o th e se q u estio n s a re c o n fid e n tia l. D is t r i c t School (o r d i s t r i c t o ff ic e ) T i t l e o f s t a f f assignm ent Years in c u rre n t assignm ent Years employed by d i s t r i c t ^ Age o f resp o n d en t (c h e ck ): 21-30 31-bQ bl+ Dumber o f own c h ild re n a tte n d in g grade 12 o r below ATTITUDE SURVEY A N SW E R S C irc le th e l e t t e r t o in d ic a te your choice fo r each q u e stio n . P lease n o te th e a d d itio n a l in s tru c tio n s in th e t e s t b o o k le t. 1 . a b c d e lb. a b o d e 27. a b c d e 39. a b c d e 2. a b c d e 1$. a b 'c d e 28. a b c d e bo. a b c d e 3. a b c d e 16. a b c d e 29. a b c d e bl. a b c d e b. a b c d e 17. a b c d e 30. a b c d e b2. a b c d* e 5. a b c d e 18. a b c d e 31. a b c d e b3. a b c d e 6. a b c d e 19* a b c d e 32. a b c d e bb. a b c d e 7. a b c d e 20. a b c d e 33. a b c d e b5. a b c d e 8. a b c d e 21. a b c d e 3b» a b c d e U6. a b c d e 9. a b c d e 22. a b c d e 33* a b c d e b7. a b c d e 10. a b c d e 23* a b c d e 36. a b c d e b8. a b c d e 11. a b e d e 2b. a b c d e 37* a b c d e b9. a b c d • 12. a b c d e 25* a b c d e 38. a b c d e 90. a b c d e 13. a b c d e 26. a b c d e 278 S chool T r u s te e s — P e rs o n a l D ata The p u rp o se o f th e q u e s tio n s Im m ediately below I s t o p ro v id e d a ta f o r c o r r e la tio n w ith a t t l t u d i n a l re s p o n s e s in d ic a te d on th e su rv e y In s tru m e n t. Answers t o th e s e q u e s tio n s a re c o n f id e n tia l. D i s t r i c t - - -. Sex o f re sp o n d en t . Age o f re s p o n d e n t (c h e c k ): 2 1 - 3 0 31-bO bl+ , O ccu p atio n _ .. _________________________________________________________________________ O ccu p a tio n o f sp o u se . Y ears r e s i d e n t in d i s t r i c t Y ears a s a t r u s t e e . Number o f own c h ild r e n a tte n d in g g rad e 12 o r below ... . ATTITUDE SURVEY ANSW ERS C ir c le th e l e t t e r t o in d ic a te y o u r c h o ice f o r each q u e s tio n . P le a s e n o te th e a d d itio n a l in s tr u c tio n s i n t h e s u rv e y b o o k le t. 1 . a b c d e lb. a b c d e 27* a b c d e 39« a b c d e 2. a b c d e 1$. a b c d e 2 8. a b c d e bO. a b c d e 3* a b c d e 1 6. a b c d e 29* a b c d e bl. a b c d e b. a b c d e 1 7* a b c d e 30. a b c d e b2. a b c d e 5. a b c d e 16. a b c d e 31 • a b c d e b3. a b c d e 6. a b c d e 19. a b c d e 32. a b c d e bb. a b c d e 7* a b o d e 20. a b c d e 33* a b c d e b5. a b c d e 8. a b c d e 21. a b c d e 3b. a b c d e b6. a b c d e 9* a b c d e 22. a b c d e 35* a b c d e b7. a b c d e 10. a b c d e 23* a b c d e 36. a b c d e b8. a b c d e 11. a b c d e 2b. a b c d e 37* a b c d e b9* a b c d e 12. a b c d e 2 5. a b c d e 38. a b c d e 50. a b c d e 13* a b c d e 26. a b c d e APPENDIX D COVER LETTERS TO SUPERINTENDENTS AND TRUSTEES 279 One of the most urgent problems confronting society today is the misuse of drugs by young people. Mr. Glenn Cook and I are conducting research on attitudes toward drug abuse held by students, school trustees, and school personnel. We believe a comparison of attitudes among these groups can contribute to a better understanding of what schools can do about the drug problem. As the attached letters indicate, both the Assembly Sub-Committee on Drugs and Alcoholism and the Executive Committee of the Los Angeles County Trustees Association have endorsed this study. As part of our research we will be making an attitude survey of samples of about eighty to one hundred students in each of several districts. The survey instru ment has been reviewed by County Counsel for compliance with Section 10901 of the Education Code, which limits the kinds of questions that may be asked of students without written parental consent. A letter from Mr. James Briggs to this effect is also enclosed. We are asking that you assist us by: (1) Completing the enclosed district participation form. (2) Taking the Attitude Survey on Drug Abuse yourself. (3) Distributing to your trustees the enclosed attitude surveys addressed to them. All responses to this study are confidential. No individual, district, or school will be identified in any correspondence or publication relating to our findings. A summary of the findings will be sent to you. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, John Mullender 1120 Northwestern Drive Claremont, California 91711 JM:ssp Enclosures: Noted 280 District Participation in the Drug Abuse Attitudes Survey by Mullender and Co k District _____________________________________________________________________ District participation in the Drug Abuse Attitudes Survey will consist of: (1) Response by the Trustees to the attitude survey instrument. (2) Response by six selected certificated personnel to the attitude survey instrument. (3) Completion of questionnaires relating to district policies and procedures in its drug abuse control efforts. (It) Possible administration of the attitude survey instrument to about eighty to one hundred students enrolled in a required eleventh-grade course.* *Some participating districts will not be included in the student sample. Please check one of the following: (l) The district wishes to cooperate in this study of drug abuse attitudes. The district representative to contact for making arrangements is: Name ______________________________________________ Position __________________________________ (Signature of person authorizing district participation) (2) _____ The district is interested in this study; however, an addi tional application procedure is required. The person to contact for making application is: Hame ______________________________________ Position __________________________________ (3) . The district does not wish to participate in this study. 281 Dear School Trustee: One of the most urgent problems confronting society today is the misuse of drugs by young people. Mr. Glenn Cook and I are conducting research on attitudes toward drug abuse held by students, school trustees, and school personnel. We believe a comparison of attitudes among these groups can contribute to a better understanding of what schools can do about the drug problem. As the enclosed letters indicate, both the Assembly Sub-Committee on Drugs and Alcoholism and the Executive Committee of the Los Angeles County Trustees Association have endorsed this study. County Counsel has examined the survey instrument we have developed for this study and has approved its legality for administration to students; a copy of a letter from Mr. James Briggs stating this is also enclosed. We are asking that you assist us by completing the enclosed attitude survey on drug abuse and returning it to us. All responses to this study are confidential. No individual or district will be identified in any correspondence or publication relating to our findings. A summary of our findings will be sent to your superintendent. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, John Mullender 1120 Northwestern Drive Claremont, California 91711 JM:ssp Enclosures: Noted 282 APPENDIX E COVER LETTER TO DISTRICT ADMINISTRATORS 283 Your superintendent has indicated that you are the person in your district best able to assist in a study that Mr. Glenn Cook and I are making on attitudes toward drug abuse. We are requesting that you complete the enclosed questionnaire describing your district's drug abuse control program. If you are not directly involved with the program and wish to refer this request to someone who is, please consider that the respondent should be familiar with the operation of the program at the district level. We are also asking that you respond to the attitude survey instrument enclosed. (This instrument is being given to selected certificated personnel, board mem bers, and students.) Our third request is that you complete the form listing high schools in your district whose attendance areas are described in the income categories. This information is to be used in the selection of ten to fifteen high schools in Los Angeles County. In each of these schools the attitude survey will be given to about eighty students. Even if a student sample is not selected from your district, however, certain certificated personnel will be asked to respond. All information is confidential. No individual, school, or district will be identified in any correspondence or publication relating to this research. A summary of the findings will be sent to you if you return the request card with your data. Thank you for your cooperation in this study. Sincerely, John Mullender 1120 Northwestern Drive Claremont, California 91711 JM:ssp Enclosures: Noted 284 District Policies and Procedures on Drug Abuse District___________________________________________________________________ As used in the following questions, "drugs" refers to all commonly abused sub stances: glue, gasoline, marijuana, amphetamines, barbiturates, LSD, cocaine, heroin, etc. 1. Approximately how many students did your district expel for school-connected drug offenses during the school year 1968-69?--------------------------------------------------- -------- 2. Approximately how many students did your district expel for drug offenses that were not school-connected during the school year 1968-697------------------------------------------------- 3. Of the total number of students expelled for drug offences during the school year 1968-69, how many have by now been readmitted to a school in your district?---------------------- -------- U. Does your district have a written board policy on student drug abuse? (If so, please attach a copy.) -------- 5. Does your district have a written administrative procedure on the disposition of drug abuse cases that is to be followed by all the schools in your district? (if so, please attach a copy.) ________ 6. Check the best completion to the following statement: "Disciplinary action in drug abuse cases is determined by ..." a. A district-wide committee that receives referrals from all schools. ________ b. An individual at the district level who receives referrals from all schools. ________ c. A committee at each school that acts independently of other schools. d. An individual or individuals at each school who act independently of each other. e. Other (specify)__________________________________ 285 Drug Abuse Educational Program 7. Does your district have a course of study for a unit on drug abuse? (If so, please attach a copy.)_________________________ ______ If you have one, when was the unit introduced? ______ 8. Complete the following descriptions of courses in your secondary curriculum that contain drug instruction: Grade Hours of Title of Course Level Instruction a. ____ __________ b. c. d. 9. List any special qualifications that a teacher who teaches about dangerous drugs must have in your district. 10. Indicate the qualifications or background that special lecturers on drug abuse must have to speak on drug abuse in your district. (If no lecturers are used, write "none.") 11. If in addition to regular classroom instruction, other measures have-been taken to acquaint students with the problems of drug abuse, indicate these measures. 12. Describe briefly any measures taken in your district to acquaint the cer tificated staff with the problems of drug abuse. 13. Describe briefly any measures taken in your district to acquaint parents vith the problems of drug abuse. 286 Counseling of Drug Abusers lU. Is special counseling of known drug abusers provided by your district? (If not, omit the rest of question l1 *.) a. Can students refer themselves for this counseling? b. Is counseling compulsory for detected offenders? If so, what happens to a student who does not comply7 How long does counseling continue for a known offender who is required to accept counseling? c. At what time of the day and how many days per week does the counseling take place? d. Is the counseling done with groups or with individual students? e. Is any effort made to involve the parents in the counseling effort? If so, how is this done?_____________________________ f. What are the qualifications of the counselor? 15. Does your district ever refer students with drug problems to outside agencies for counseling? If so, what are these agencies?,__________________________ 16. Are students with drug problems ever expelled with readmission contingent upon certain conditions? If so, what are these conditions?_________________________ 287 Socio-economic Profile of Schools District. Please supply the name of one school and its descriptive information for each of the income classifications that describe a school attendance area in your district. Omit income classifications that do not exist in your district. 1. A high school with a high proportion of students from homes with incomes over $15)000 per year: School Enrollment Principal Check one: Urban . Suburban . Percentage of racial/ethnic groups: White. Mexican-American ______ Oriental __ Small'town-rural Black _____ Other A high school with a high proportion of students from homes with incomes ranging from $7>000 to $15>000 per year: School Enrollment. Principal. Check one: Urban .Suburban Percentage of racial/ethnic groups: White Mexican-American_______ Oriental___ Small town-rural _ Black _____ Other 3. A high school with a high proportion of students from homes with incomes below $7)000 per year: School Enrollment Principal. Check one: Urban. Suburban Percentage of racial/ethnic groups: White Mexican-American______ Oriental __ Small town-rural _ Black _____ Other 288 APPENDIX F COVER LETTER AND ENCLOSURES TO PRINCIPALS 289 Your superintendent has authorized participation by your district in a study by Mr. Glenn Cook and me on attitudes toward drug abuse. A part of this study includes the sampling of attitudes of persons with specific responsibilities at the school level. These persons are: (1) The administrator most directly responsible for disciplinary action in drug abuse cases (2) An experienced counselor (3) The teacher of the required course including instruction about dangerous drugs Will you please distribute the enclosed attitude surveys to the persons described above? The surveys, with a questionnaire for the administrator and the teacher, are enclosed in envelopes addressed to each of the three. In addition, a questionnaire requesting general information about your school and attendance area is enclosed. This information is to be used in selection of a stratified sample of ten to fifteen schools in Los Angeles County. In each of these schools about eighty to one hundred eleventh-grade students will be given the attitude survey. The survey will be administered by either Mr. Cook or me and will take about twenty-five minutes to complete. Please complete the school information questionnaire and return it to me. All information is confidential. No person, school, or district will be identi fied in any correspondence or publication relating to this research. A summary of the findings will be sent to you if you complete the request card and return it with the school information questionnaire. Thank you for your cooperation in this project. Sincerely, John Mullender 1120 Northwestern Drive Claremont, California 91711 JM:ssp Enclosures: Noted 290 School and Attendance Area Data School___________________________________ District ___________________________ 1. School enrollment__________________ Grades enrolled___________________ 2. Ability grouping in eleventh-grade English classes (check): Heterogeneous ________ ; Homogeneous ; Large-group- team--------- 3. Approximate percentage of 19&9 graduating class who started as first-year students in your school: % k. Approximate percentage of 1969 graduating class now enrolled in a four-year college or university: % 5. Percentage distribution of racial/ethnic groups now enrolled: White______ % Black_______% Mexican-American______ % Oriental______ % 6. Most typical range of years of education completed by parents of your students (chec.t one): 8 or less ; 9-11________ ; 12-15 _________* 16 or more______ 7. Most typical annual income range of heads of households in the homes of your students (check one): $5,000 or below ; $5,000 - $10,000______ ; $10,000 - $15,000_____; $15,000 - $25,000 ; $25,000 or above_____ 8. Most typical market-value range of houses in your attendance area (check one): $10,000 or below ; $10,000 - $15,000_____ ; $15,000 - $20,000_____; $20,000 - $30,000 ; $30,000 or above_____ 9* Approximate percentage distribution of occupational levels among the heads of households in homes of your students: Unemployed___________% Unskilled ___________% Skilled____________% White collar Professional nonprofessional ___________% and managerial___________ % 291 Dear Administrator: Your principal has been requested to refer the enclosed attitude survey and disciplinary practices questionnaire to you as the person most directly responsible for handling disciplinary problems arising from student drug abuse. The attitude survey and questionnaire are part of a study on attitudes and practices relating to drug abuse being conducted by Mr. Glenn Cook and me. The study includes the sampling of opinion from selected certificated personnel, board members, and students. All information is confidential. No person, school, or district will be identi fied in correspondence or in any publication relating to this research. A summary of the findings will be sent to your principal if he so requests. Please return the completed attitude survey and questionnaire in the envelope provided. Thank you for your cooperation in this research. Sincerely, John Mullender 1120 Northwestern Drive Claremont, California 91711 JM:ssp Enclosures: Noted 292 School Administrative Procedures on Drug Abuse School______________________________ District 1. How many students from your school did your district expel for drug offenses on campus or at school events during the school year 1968-6 9? 2. How many students from your school did your district expel for drug offenses not school-connected during the school year 1968-69? 3. Of the total number of students from your school who were expelled for drug offenses during the school year 1968-6 9* how many have now been readmitted? U. How and by whom is disciplinary action decided in drug abuse cases at your school? (Use reverse page if needed.) 5. What do you believe to be the most effective non-punitive measure commonly taken in cases of drug abuse at your school? (Measures other than suspension, expulsion, or referral to police or probation.) 6. What is the most serious disciplinary measure commonly used to discipline first offenders at your school? 7. In your school .do you attempt to distinguish between kinds of drug offenses in your disciplinary treatment of the offender— for instance, do you distinguish between being under the influence of a drug and selling a drug? If so, in what way?__________________________________________ 293 294 Administrative Procedures, page 2 8. In your school do you attempt to distinguish between first and second offenders in your disciplinary action? If so, in what way?___________________________________ _ 9- In your school do you attempt to distinguish between the kinds of drugs misused or sold by the offender— for instance, between reds (barbiturates) and LSD? If so, in what way?. 10. What do you believe should be done to make the schools more effective in reducing drug abuse? Dear Counselor: Your principal has been requested to refer the enclosed attitude survey on drug abuse to you as an experienced counselor. The attitude survey is a part of a study being conducted by Mr. Glenn Cook and me and includes the sampling of opinion from selected school personnel, board members, and students. All information is confidential. No person, school, or district will be identi fied in correspondence or in any publication relating to this research. A sum mary of the findings will be sent to your principal if he so requests. Please return the completed attitude survey in the envelope provided. Thank you for your cooperation in this research. Sincerely, John Mullender 1120 Northwestern Drive Claremont, California 91711 JM: ssp Enclosures: Noted 295 Dear Colleague: Your principal has teen requested to refer the enclosed attitude survey and questionnaire to you as a teacher of a course including instruction on dangerous drugs. The attitude survey and questionnaire are a part of a study on attitudes and practices relating to dangerous drugs instruction being conducted by Mr. Glenn Cook and me. The study includes the sampling of attitudes toward drug abuse from selected school personnel, board members, and students. All information is confidential. No person, school, or district will be identified in correspondence or in any publication relating to this research. A summary of the findings will be sent to your principal if he so requests. Please return the completed attitude survey and questionnaire in the envelope provided. Thank you for your cooperation in this research. Sincerely, John Mullender 1120 Northwestern Drive Claremont, California 91711 JM:ssp Enclosures: Noted 296 Instruction on Dangerous Drugs School________________________________ District______________________________ The term "dangerous drugs" as used in the following questions refers to the commonly abused substances that are swallowed, sniffed, smoked, or injected and includes such materials as barbiturates, amphetamines, glue, marijuana, LSD, and heroin. 1. What course do you teach that includes instruction about dangerous drugs? 2. Approximately how many students per teacher are enrolled in each of the class sections that receive this instruction? 3. Is instruction on dangerous drugs set apart as a separate unit in the course? If so, who developed this unit? ________________________ (If you have material describing this unit, please attach.) U. What year was this unit of instruction introduced? 5. If there is no unit with a defined subject content, what guidance have you received in determining what is to be taught about drugs? 6. How many class hours do you devote to drug instruction? 7* Do you attempt to influence attitudes toward drug abuse as well as teach the fact about drugs and drug abuse? If so, how do you do this? _____ | ________________________ 8. Do you invite resource persons to speak to your classes about drug problems? If so, what are their qualifications?__________________ 297 298 Instruction on Dangerous Drugs, page 2 9. Approximately how do you divide your class time among the following instructional methods? Lecture % Films or other AV materials______ % Resource persons % Student discussion % Field trips % Other (specify)______________ 10. What courses have you had relating to dangerous drugs or the ahuse of drugs? 11. What other experience or training have you had that has helped you in teaching about dangerous drugs and drug abuse? 12. Do you believe that instruction on dangerous drugs and drug abuse logically belongs in the course that you are now teaching? If not, what changes would you recommend? _____________ 13. What do you believe should be done to make the schools more effective in reducing drug abuse? APPENDIX G FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO CERTIFICATED RESPONDENTS 299 A few weeks ago you received a survey on attitudes toward drug abuse that was sent to you through your superintendent. If you have already responded to this survey, please dis regard this request. As a person intimately connected with the problems of educa tion, you are undoubtedly aware of the increase of- drug abuse among students of high school age, and younger. Since the schools are the one agency in our society in daily contact with this age group, it seems essential that the schools de fine as realistically as possible their responsibility con cerning misuse of drugs by young people, r'or this reason Glenn Cook and I are investigating the specific attitudes that those connected with the schools, both ad\ilts and students, hold toward aspects of drug abuse. We believe that it will be helpful for people with responsibility for the direction of educational programs to be aware of the nature and extent of any attitudinal differences that adults and students may have on this subject. As the enclosed letters indicate, both the Assembly Sub committee on Drugs and Alcoholism and the Executive Committee of the Los Angeles County Trustees Association have endorsed this study. We are asking that you complete and return the enclosed attitude survey. Your assistance in this research will be very helpful. A summary of our findings will be sent to your superintendent. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, John Mullender 1120 Northwestern Dr. Claremont, Calif. 91711 300 APPENDIX H JUVENILE DRUG ARRESTS: OFFENSE BY YEAR OF BIRTH AND YEAR OF ARREST 301 JUVENILE DRUG ARRESTS I960 -1969 Offense by half-year arrested NO. OF ARRESTS 10 . 0 0 0 r 8.00 0 : 6,000--------- 4 ,0 0 0 MARIJUANA 2,000 1,000 8 0 0 6 0 0 4 0 0 DANGEROUS DRUGS 200 100 8 0 6 0 4 0 OPIATES 20 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd tsi 2nd 1st 2 n d 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1s t 2 n d 1st 2nd I9 6 0 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 HALF- YEAR Source: California State Department of Justice, Division of Law Enforcement. Drug Arrests and Disposition in California. Sacramento: Bureau of Criminal Statistics, 1969. 302 DRUG ARRESTS OF JUVENILIS (UNDER 18 YEARS) REPORTED BY CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES I960 THROUGH 1969 S p e c if i c O ffe n se b y Y e a r o f A r r e s t S p e c if i c o f f e n s e i 960 1961 1962 1963 196! + 1965 1966 1967 I 968a iy 6 9 a P e r c e n t c h a n g e 1969 o v e r 1968 1969 o v e r I9 6 0 T o t a l ......................................................................................... l , 6 l£ 1 ,2 7 1 1 ,3 3 6 1 ,^ 3 9 2 ,0 2 2 2 ,6 8 9 5 ,3 5 5 ll+ ,7 6 o 3 2 ,3 6 0 3 5 ,9 6 5 1 1 .1 2 , 1 2 5 .6 M a riju a n a .......................................................................... 910 1*08 310 635 1 ,2 3 7 1 ,6 1 9 k , 03k 1 0 ,9 8 7 1 9 ,0 5 5 1 6 ,1 8 0 - 1 5 .9 1 , 6 7 6 .0 P o s s e s s io n ..................................................................... 621 2U8 23k *+35 956 1 ,3 7 8 3 ,5 3 9 9,61*3 1 6 ,7 2 5 ll+,l*00 - 1 3 .9 2 , 2 1 8 .8 P o s s e s s io n f o r s a l e ............................................. - - - 8 5 11 1* 2 123 295 295 0 .0 S a le o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n ........................................ 37 Ik 9 k l 00 76 211 696 1 ,3 6 5 1 ,2 2 5 - 1 0 .3 F u r n is h in g m in o r....................................................... 19 6 1 13 13 7 16 U2 5 10 _ S a l e i n l i e u o f ....................................................... 1 2 2 3 1 1 7 23 25 15 _ C u l t i v a t i n g p e y o te .................................................. - - 1 - - _ 7 5 30 _ _ M a in ta in in g p re m is e s f o r ................................... - - - - - _ 1 1 10 _ _ Use o f m a r iju a n a ....................................................... 231 137 61 12? 195 136 203 1*28 635 170 - 7 3 -2 - 2 6 . 1 * F e d e r a l ........................................................................... 1 1 2 8 1 10 ll* 21* 25 H e ro in an d o t h e r n a r c o t i c s ................................... 38 ■ 35 25 1*9 38 29 61 131* 205 255 2 k .k P o s s e s s io n ...................................................................... 29 26 19 38 26 19 1*2 101* ll*0 165 1 7 .9 _ P o s s e s s io n f o r s a l e ............................................. - - - 1 - 3 8 12 ' 15 25 S a le o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n ........................................ 5 6 1 5 10 k 1 * 9 25 65 F u r n is h in g m in o r....................................................... 2 1 1 1 _ 1 1 _ S a le i n l i e u o f ....................................................... - - 2 2 _ 2 1 k 20 _ _ F e d e r a l .......................................................................... 2 2 2 2 2 - 5 5 5 - - - N a r c o tic a d d ic t o r u s e r ........................................ 122 101 58 U3 66 31 57 138 31*5 U95 1 * 3 .5 3 0 5 .7 R o u tin e a r r e s t ............................................................ 119 99 55 1*3 65 30 56 132 325 1*75 1*6.2 2 9 9 .2 D r iv in g u n d e r i n f l u e n c e ................................... 3 2 2 _ 1 _ 1 5 20 20 CRC (3050&3051 W 8 -J)............................................. - 1 - - 1 1 - - D an g ero u s d r u g s ......................... '................................. 515 709 906 675 63 9 951 1 ,0 0 7 2 ,8 0 9 1 0 ,8 0 5 1 7 ,5 9 5 6 2 .8 3 , 3 1 6 .5 P o s s e s s io n ..................................................................... 282 359 398 281 271 1*01 1*26 1 ,2 2 2 3 ,8 2 0 20 - 9 9 .5 - 9 2 .9 P o s s e s s io n f o r s a l e ............................................. - - - - - 10 25 95 515 620 20.1* P o s s e s s io n w ith p r i o r ........................................ - - - - _ _ 870 8 ,7 5 " _ S a l e o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n ( f e lo n y ) . . . . - - - - 1* 18 161 865 1,3 5 2 .0 S a le o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n (m isd em e a n o r). . 13 29 5 9 5 12 5 8 10 10 F u r n is h in g m in o r....................................................... 10 17 3k k l 25 11 10 18 11*0 l*+5 3 .6 _ D riv in g u n d e r i n f l u e n c e ................................... 15 11 10 12 10 23 31 78 275 370 31*.5 _ U nder i n f l u e n c e o f ........................ ........................ 19*+ 290 1*59 332 325 1*89 1*90 1 ,2 1 8 l*,295 6 ,3 3 5 1*7.5 3 , 1 6 5 .5 D rug a d d ic t - h o s p i t a l com m itm ent . . . 1 3 - - 2 _ * 1 * 10 25 T e le p h o n e f r a u d ....................................................... - - - - 1 _ _ F e d e r a l .......................................................................... - - - - 1 “ 2 5 5 - - - O th e r o f f e n s e s ................................................................. 31 18 37 37 k2 59 196 692 1 ,9 5 0 1 , 1 * 1*0 - 2 6 .2 B r in g in g d ru g s i n t o j a i l . . . . . . . . 1 - - 2 1 _ 1 1 _ _ P r e s c r i p t i o n f o r g e r y o r f r a u d .................... 3 - 3 5 - 2 9 13 10 30 _ P o s s e s s io n n a r c o t i c p a r a p h e r n a li a . . . 3 13 10 Ik 11 16 35 132 6 2 0 1+65 - 2 5 .0 V i s i t i n g n a r c o t i c p r e m is e s .............................. 2k 3 13 9 8 lU 73 391 * 1 ,3 2 0 9^5 - 2 8 .U _ E x a c t c h a rg e u n d e te r m in a b le ......................... - 2 11 7 22 27 78 152 - - C o m p u te d fro m ex p an d ed tw e n ty p e r c e n t sa m p le . M o te: P e r c e n ta g e s n e t c a n p u te d o n b a s e s s m a lle r t h a n 5 0 . S ource: C alifornia S ta te D e p a rtm e n t o f Ju stic e . D ivision o f L aw E n fo rcem en t. D ru g A rrests a n d Dirpoiition in California. Sacramento: Bureau o f Criminal Statistics, 1969. D R U G ARRETS OF JUVENILES (UNDER 18 YEARS) REPORTED BY CALIFORNIA L A W EN FO R C EM EN T AGENCIES, 1969 O ffense by Year o f B irth (Expanded Twenty P ercen t Sample) O ffense T o ta l 1955 and l a t e r 1951 * 1953 1952 1951 Number P ercen t Number P ercen t Number P ercen t Number P ercen t Number P ercen t T o t a l .......................................................... 35,970 2,500 100.0 U,910 100.0 7,915 100.0 12,685 100.0 7,960 100.0 M arijuana ............................................. 16,180 765 30.6 1,980 1*0.3 3 , ^ 0 *♦3.5 5,980 1*7.2 *+,015 50.1* O p iates ................................................. 755 U5 1 .8 85 1 .7 135 1.7 310 2.1* 180 2 .3 Dangerous drugs ................................ 17,595 1,600 61*.o 2,730 55.6 3,975 50.2 5,925 1*6.7 3,365 1*2.3 O ther o ffe n s e s . ................................ 1,1*1*0 90 3.6 115 2.U 365 1*.6 1*70 3 .7 1*00 5.0 Source: California State Department of Justice, Division of Law Enforcement. Drug Arrests and Disposition in California. Sacramento: Bureau of Criminal Statistics, 1969. APPENDIX I CALIFORNIA CODE PROVISIONS 305 P ro v isio n s o f th e C a lifo rn ia H e a lth & S a fe ty C o d e M in im u m S e n te n c e (Y ears) M ax im u m S e n te n c e (Y ears) E lig ib le fo r P a ro le o r R e lease A fte r T im e S erv ed (Y ears) I n S ta te P ris o n U n le ss O th e rw is e N o te d T H E L A W - D A N G E R O U S D R U G S SECTION 11910 Unlawful possession o f LSD, hypnotic drugs and am phetam ines No prior conviction Prior conviction and certain other convictions * or 1 year in County Jail 2 20 2 SECTION 11911 Unlawful possession for sale o f restrictive dangerous drugs (alternative • felony or misdemeanor) No prior conviction 1 prior convic tion o f 11911 and certain other convictions 1 or 3 1 year in County Jail 2 10 SECTION 11912 Sale, transportation o f restricted dangerous drugs (alternative • felony or misdemeanor) No prior conviction Prior conviction o f 11910 and certain other convictions * or ^ 1 year in County Jail 2 10 SECTION 11913 Using a m inor as an agent or sale to a m inor o f dangerous restrictive drugs (a felony) No prior conviction Prior conviction o f 11910 and certain other convictions 1 2 5 10 SECTION 11917 Furnishing, selling, etc., material in lieu o f re strictive dangerous drugs after agreem ent, offer, etc., to furnish, sell, etc., a restricted dangerous drug(decep- tionj (alternative • felony or misdemeanor N ot more than 5 years or I year in County Jail THE LAW - NARCOTICS - OTHER PROVISIONS SECTION 11556 It is unlawful to visit or be in any room or place where any narcotic-including mari- juana-is being unlawfully smoked or used w ith the knowledge that such activity is occurring (a misdemeanor) 15 to 180 days in County Jail or A fine o f not less than S30 or more than $500 or both SECTION 11721 Use o f or being under the influence of narcotics - including marijuana (a misdemeanor) 90 days 1 year 90 days To be served in County Jail SECTION 11503 Sale or furnishing o f a substance falsely represented to be a narcotic • including marijuana (alternative - felony or misdemeanor) 10 years in State Prison or 1 year in County Jail Source: California State D epartm ent o f Justice, Division o f Law Enforcement. Drug Arrests and Disposition in California. Sacram ento: Bureau of Criminal Statistics, 1969. 306 THE LAW - MARIJUANA P ro v isio n s o f th e C a lifo rn ia H e a lth 8c S a fe ty C o d e M in im u m S e n te n c e (Y ears) M ax im u m S e n te n c e (Y ears) E lig ib le fo r P a ro le o r R elease A fte r T im e S erv ed (Y ears) In S ta te P ris o n U n less O th e rw is e N o te d SECTION 11530 Possession (a felony) No prior conviction 1 prior conviction 2 or more prior convictions 1 or 1 year in 2 5 10 County Jail 20 Life 2 5 SECTION U 530.1 Planting, cultivation, processing a felony) No prior conviction 1 prior conviction 2 o r m ore prior convictions 1 2 5 . 10 20 Life 1 2 5 SECTION 11532 Use o f a minor to sell or sale to a minor of Marijuana (a felony) No prior conviction 1 prior conviction 2 or more prior convictions 10 10 15 Life Life Life 5 10 15 SECTION 11530.5 Possession for sale of marijuana (a felony) No prior conviction 1 prior conviction 2 or more prior convictions 2 5 10 10 15 Life 2 3 SECTION 11531 Sale, offer to sell, transport, im port, give, etc. marijuana (a felony) No prior conviction 1 prior conviction 2 or m ore prior convictions 5 5 10 Life Life Life 3 5 10 T H E L A W - N A R C O T IC S E X C E P T M A R IJU A N A SECTION 11500 Possession o f narcotics except marijuana (a felony) No prior conviction 1 prior conviction 2 or more prior convictions 2 5 15 10 - 20 Life 2 5 15 TSECNON 11560.5 Possession for sale of narcotic except marijuana (a felony) No prior conviction 1 prior conviction 2 or more prior convictions 5 10 15 15 Life Life 2'A 6 15 SECTION 11501 Sale, gift, transporting fumisning. etc. o f a non-mari|uana nar cotic (heroin, for ex ample) (a felony) No prior conviction 1 prior conviction 2 or m ore prior convictions 5 10 15 Life Life Life 3 10 15 SECTION 11502 Selling non-marijuana narcotic to a minor (a felony) No prior conviction 1 prior conviction 2 or m ore prior convictions 10 10 15 Life Life Life 5 10 15 StC TlO N 11502 Anyone over 21 who solicits, induces, en courages a m inor with in te n rto possess or seflnarco.tics otner than marijuana (a felony) No prior conviction 1 prior conviction 2 or m ore prior convictions 10 10 15 Life Life Life 5 10 15 StCTIO N 11502.1 Anyone under 21 who solicits, induces, en- courages a minor with intent to possess, use, or sell narcotics other than marijuana (a felony) tio prior conviction Prior conviction 5 10 THE LAW - DRIVING AND GLUE, DRUGS, ETC. P ro v isio n s o f th e C a lifo rn ia V eh ic le C o d e M in im u m S e n te n c e (Y ears) M ax im u m S e n te n c e (Y ears) SECTION 23102 Driving upon a public highway under the influence of intoxicating liquoT or combined influence of intoxicating liquor and a drug (a misdemeanor) Not less than $50 and not more than $500 and/or not less than 30 days and not more than six m onths in County Jail. Additional penalties for prior convictions. SECTION 23101.5 Causing injury by unlawful act while driving under the influence o f poisonous glue (alternative * felony or misdemeanor) I to 5 years in State Prison or 90 days to 1 year in County Jail and fine o f not less than $250 nor more than $5,000 SECTION 23102.5 Driving under the influence o f poisonous glue (m isdemeanor) 30 days in Co. Jail 6 m onths in Co. Jail or $250, or both or $500, or both NOTE: Additional penalties can be given for addi tional convictions SECTION 23105 Driving under the influence o f a narcotic drug. e. g. marijuana, or am phetam ine or its derivative (alternative - fel»ny or misdemeanor) 1 to 5 years in State Prison or 90 days to 1 year in County Jail or A fine o f $200 to $5,000 SECTION 23106 Driving under the influence o f non-narcotic drugs, except amphetamines, e. g., pep pills (a misdemeanor) 1 year in County Jail and/or a fine o f $500 SECTION 23108 Causing injury while driving under the influence of a drug other than a narcotic (barbituric acid derivative) 1 to 5 years in State Prison or 90 days to 1 year in County Jail or a fine o fS 2 0 0 to $5,000 or both T H E L A W - O T H E R P R O V IS IO N S P ro v isio n s o f th e C a lifo rn ia P en al C o d e M in im u m S e n te n c e (Y ears) M ax im u m S e n te n c e (Y ears) E lig ib le fo r P a ro le c r R elease A fte r T im e S erv ed (Y ears) SECTION 367d Driving under influence o f intoxicating liquor or combined influence o f intoxi cating liquor and a drug (a misdemeanor) Not more than $500 fine and/or not more than six m onths in County Jail SECTION 381 Inhalation of poison (including glue) for purpose o f intoxication (misdemeanor) 6 m onths in County Jail and/or a maximum fine o f $500 P ro v isio n s o f th e B u sin ess & P ro fe ssio n s C ode, SECTION 4164 Sale or delivery o f poisonous glue to a minor (under 18 years) (a misdemeanor) S I00 fine and/or 90 days in County Jail $500 fine and/or 1 year in County Jail APPENDIX J EXAMPLE OF METHOD USED FOR COMPARISON OF DISTRICT PRACTICES TO STUDENT ATTITUDES 309 AN EXAMPLE OF THE METHOD USED FOR COMPARISON OF DISTRICT PRACTICES TO STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD DRUG ABUSE DISCIPLINARY PRACTICES Attitude Profile of Schools a Q ___c Suspension, On-Campus . Offenses Q . l Expulsion, On-Campus Offenses Q. 2 Expulsion Off-Campus Offenses Q. 3 Readmission after Expulsion Q . 4 Written Board Policy on Drug Offenses Intolerant b 11 + 0 0 0 + 2 + 0 0 0 + 1 + + + 0 0 3 + 0 0 0 + 7 5 4 8 0 + + + + 10 0 0 0 0 + 9 0 0 0 0 + 6 0 + 0 + + Tolerant Significance .05 NS NS NS NS a The attitude profile o f the schools shows the result- of the New Duncan Range Test for I he Combined Factors on the attitude survey. The schools with a continuous vertical line opposite their I. D. numbers have mean attitude responses for Combined Factors (all 41 items) that are not signi ficantly different. The schools that do not have a continuous vertical line opposite their numbers have means that are significantly different at .05 confidence. k Schools at the top of the scale (11,2,1,3) were the most intolerant toward drug abuse. The schools in the middle (7, 5 ,4 ) were not significantly different from any school except Number II. Schools at the low end (8,10,9,6) were most tolerant. Only the most intolerant schools (11,2,1,3) were compared with the most tolerant schools (8,10,9,6) in the chi square test. c Q. is a hypothetical question illustrating a distribution required to have a chi square of .05 significance. (9-595) Q. 1,2,3 and 4 show actual responses to the questionnaire, with the plus (+) denoting “yes” and zero denoting “no” . The same procedure was used for comparing all questions, except that continuous data were dichotomized as above or below the median response. 310

Linked assets