D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) “… is a police officer-led series of classroom lessons that teaches children from kindergarten through 12th grade how to resist peer pressure and live productive drug and violence-free lives.”
In City Administrator Al Roder’s weekly memo for Dec. 17-21:
On 12-14-2007 Northfield Police Department interviewed police officers that had expressed an interest of becoming DARE instructors. Northfield Schools and Northfield Police Department Captains conducted the interviews. Northfield Police Department Officers Blaine Anderson and Paul Haider were selected. The officers will attend state sponsored training from January 7 until January 18, 2008. Northfield Police Department officers will run the first ever DARE program in the Northfield school district starting in February 2008. This program has been put together with cooperation from Northfield Schools and Northfield Police Department.
In the Feb. 15 Nfld News, Megan Proft has an article titled DARE comes to Sibley School. And in the Feb. 20 Nfld News editorial titled DARE in schools a must for Northfield:
Numerous studies have been done on the program since its inception in 1983 in urban Los Angeles. The most well-known of these conclude two things: that DARE doesn’t do much to keep kids away from drugs and alcohol, and that it helps form a bond between students and law enforcement. But eight months after the city was rocked by the news of possible drug use problems, Northfield can scarcely afford to do nothing.
I take issue with the last sentence of the editorial.
“…possible drug use problems”? I say our town definitely has drug abuse problems.
“…afford to do nothing”? Much has been done since the heroin story broke last summer.
But my bigger questions are:
- Given the questions about the effectiveness of DARE (see the section in the Wikipedia entry on DARE re: the critical view), should our policy makers (the Northfield School Board and the Northfield City Council) be more involved in deciding whether the time is right for DARE here in Northfield? I can find nothing in the council or school board minutes where the issue has been discussed.
- Should the Mayor’s Task Force on Youth Alcohol & Drug Use, the HCI, the Union of Youth, and the Rice County Chemical Health Coalition be involved in determining whether DARE is right for Northfield?
My uninformed answer to both questions is ‘yes.’ But I’m open to being influenced.
169 Comments
It is interesting that you posted this on February 26 (2008) and no one has yet commented–does this mean the Locally Grown pundits think this is “no news?”
I agree with you that Northfield has not sat and done nothing, but we have been somewhat lax in our follow-through. I think there are 2 things at work:
1. Many in Northfield do not believe we have a drug problem or believe it is just certain “bad” kids and doesn’t affect them.
2. We have not struck at the base of this disease–where kids are beginning to venture into drug use, which is at drinking parties that are all over. (I am saying there is a big alchohol problem in Northfield that we are not addressing, even though some of our children have died and others gone on to serious drug problems.)
I agree with the comment about the editorial–this is not a “possible drug use problem” it is A SERIOUS DRUG USE PROBLEM. The Northfield News can’t seem to decide if they are with us or against us–according to the News, DARE is a “must” for Northfield schools but doesn’t do much to keep kids away from drugs, which I guess is OK with the News since drugs are only a “possible” problem.
DARE does not work for its stated purpose–educating kids about drugs so that they will not use drugs. It is nice that the police have good relationships with everyone in the community, including the kids, but this program is not the answer.
I was quite surprised that the paper would write an effusive article about this program when it is well documented and well studied–it doesn’t work. I think it is harmless and a good way to give teachers a break so they can catch up on prep time or at least not have to prep for teaching this topic. (Although I bet most of the teachers need to be in the room during the DARE presentation, negating any positive there.)
We really need to come up with ways of making our community healthy for recovering addicts–they need jobs and focus that keeps them away from former friends and habits.
Jane, I think since DARE doesn’t cost the district anything, no one much cares if it’s effective or not as long as it’s ‘harmless,’ as you say.
I’d like to see the candidates for police chief asked about DARE.
The problem is that DARE isn’t harmless if parents believe the school is doing something to stop drugs. I think the program should be renamed to reflect building relationships with police but without the drug component.
This is like teaching abstinence only and thinking kids won’t have sex. These things all make the parents feel better but don’t address the really uncomfortable things parents have to do themselves to help kids deal with drugs and sex. It’s lousy to have to be a kiljoy and make your kids have curfews, have limits on their friends and their activities and have limits on access to prescription drugs. It’s not always fun to be a parent, but it’s important.
Sure there need to be programs for kids, but there also needs to be ‘peer pressure’ by parents demanding that their friends act like grown-ups and quit worrying about being cool. We all want to believe our kids are the smartest, the wisest and that we’ve taught them to make good decisions. That’s the fallacy of DARE, that you can teach a 16-year-old to avoid drugs. Teen brains aren’t adult brains and really smart kids make lousy decisions. They need parents saying no and making good decisions for them until they are really ready to do it on their own.
Maybe parents should have to go through DARE when their kids are in middle school so the cops can tell them all the tricks their kids are going to use on them over the next few years.
Griff said:
This is the logic that the Northfield News used as well, and it seems like a very poor way to decide whether or not to expose kids to propaganda like DARE. Is there anything unreasonable about asking a program to provide a benefit (as opposed to no effect at all)?
Anne, I agree with your statement about drug-abstinence being unrealistic for teens, but I would go a bit further in my own concerns about DARE. It creates — not for everybody, but for some — a fundamental distrust between kids and teachers/police when all drugs are lumped together under a universal “bad” label (bothering only to distinguish between “gateway drugs” and the further drugs they’ll supposedly lead you to). High school kids actually believe that because they were lied to about alcohol and marijuana, that all the other things they were told were bad — LSD and cocaine, for example — must be equally nonharmful: if DARE lied about one thing, it must have lied about it all.
So even if zero-effect is acceptable, what DARE provides is far, far worse.
Mini-Survey: At Norm Butler’s Politics and a Pint, last Sunday evening, the subject of the DARE program came up. Out of the six adults who expressed and opinion, 5 felt that it had been statistically proven to be NON effective;
one person felt that if it benefitted even one child in a classroom that was enough.
I share the feeling that a program that has been studied as much as this one has, and found to be ineffective, can deflect efforts to provide a more effective program.
So what are the costs, dollars, time, wasted academic time etc, of this effort? Why do the schools/police want this if there are better programs?
Sean- You said,”… High school kids actually believe that because they were lied to about alcohol and marijuana, that all the other things they were told were bad — LSD and cocaine, for example — must be equally nonharmful: if DARE lied about one thing, it must have lied about it all.” “Equally non-harmful?!” Where have you been the last couple months? How many college students have died this winter from alcohol poisoning? I don’t think it is misinformation provided by DARE that has gotten kids off track. It is misinformation provided by people who actually believe that alcohol is “non-harmful!” I have some very strong opinions on this, and I think there are statistics to support them.
Felicity, you have access to some of this information. What does it say?
Griff, what was that thread you started last spring, about the wisdom of the city of Northfield providing a store to supply “gateway drugs?” I think you have something there.
John, abuse anything and it will hurt you. Surely you’d agree that cocaine is, for the vast majority of people, going to be far more harmful than alcohol.
It would be great if nobody drank and nobody smoked pot, but as Anne said, it’s just not realistic.
Distinctions need to be made. Marijuana/Alcohol shouldn’t be put on the same level as severe drugs, and kids shouldn’t be duped into believing that one necessarily leads them down a path toward another.
My understanding is the physically alcohol is more damaging to the body than cocaine or heroin but they are more addictive (although alcohol is also very addictive) which causes all kinds of problems.
The schools should probably have a class every day of the week on the negative effects of drugs and alcohol to: counter the media’s glorification of using and recognize that math & reading skills never overcome an abuse problem.
Oh my gosh, Wikipedia says that DARE is worthless, so it must be so… get serious.
Right now, Northfield needs all the help it can get. If not this program, then suggest another?
It is at least someone trying to make an effort, even if it is only a finger plugging the leak.
If you think the program is ineffective, lets get something else in here that is effective.
John, I assume your sarcastic remarks about Wikipedia were directed at me because I linked to their DARE entry.
Why the put down? You can make your point without it. Remarks like that send a signal to all who are reading but not participating that they’re likely to get the same treatment if their opinion differs from yours.
I linked to the Wikipedia entry in part because of the way they treat controversial issues like this, ie, “those who support it say x” and “those who criticize it say y”.
Sean- You said, “…abuse anything and it will hurt you.” This is all too true. For that matter, if one breathes too much oxygen, they can die from oxidosis. Drink too much water? It throws your electrolites off and, again, you can die. Actually, what needs to be addressed is not the substance, but the reason for the abuse. If a person is predisposed to not being able to resolve life’s conflicts, the pattern is to look for “relief” in something outside themselves. We are not willing to put up with a mere headache or sniffy nose without taking some pill. It is a pattern of life in most affluent societies.
When a person runs into longer term conflicts, say a loss of a job, or, on the student level, flunking a class, or feeling they are an outcast from the other students, the natural reaction is to look for some pill to take to mask the pain. This is the addictive pattern that can develope. When we are dealing with chemicals that ascerbate this escape, rather than resolving the problem, we get into trouble. What is being taught in the public schools that compliments parental character teaching and reinforces parents’ values in their children? When I was growing up, if I got into trouble at school, then I was for sure going to be in trouble when I got home. I have three daughters that teach. The greatest challenge they face in the classroom is parents who will do anything to get their kids “off” rather than support the teachers in their discipline. Discipline?! Now, that is a rare commodity in this day and age. It is no wonder we have a whole generation of kids coming on who seem to have no concept of consequences and personal responsibility. That is just my opinion of what I observe, though.
It could be that DARE is actually teaching the wrong level. Perhaps some of the parents out there should go through the course so they can reinforce what is being taught in the classroom. I think we are addressing a growing problem in our society that is not going to be overcome with education alone.
John (George), I’m not sure that discipline is exactly the solution, but otherwise I really agree with what you’ve said.
Still, though, that doesn’t cover everything. Kids still need to know about the effects of drugs, and they need to learn them in a safe, honest environment. I think DARE is fundamentally bad in that respect, because it’s taught by police officers who are beholden to the law, not the truth.
John (Thomas), you wrote:
I would again make the point that “something” is not necessarily better than “nothing.” I don’t know of anything better than DARE, but even if it were the least bad thing out there, that doesn’t mean we have to use it.
To Griff’s original questions 1 and 2: Yes and Yes. From the relatively little I know about DARE it does not seem to be particularly effective. I share the concerns of several of the folks commenting above that it may actually be counterproductive by giving parents the sense that the schools are “taking care of the problem,” when parents have a critically important role to play in bringing up kids less likely to abuse drugs. Policymakers and educated local stakeholders should be involved in this decision. I wish I knew of a more effective program I could recommend, but I don’t. Perhaps others do, and I welcome their suggestions.
My two kids (16 and 19) got anti-drug-use education in health classes from grade school through high school here in Northfield, but my wife and I have always felt it is primarily our responsibility to model responsible chemical use and support our kids in making wise choices and resisting peer pressure. I have serious doubts that DARE can make any difference unless parents are engaged from birth on as partners with the schools in teaching about this issue.
I also think we have an unhealthy obsession with abstinence concerning chemical use in this country, when the real issue, in my opinion is abuse. To focus obsessively on kids not using alcohol until they are 21, for example, seems unhelpful and almost certainly counterproductive. I am not suggesting that parents give a wink and a nod concerning drinking, or allow drinking parties in their homes, or anything of the sort. I am suggesting that discussing alcohol (and other drug) use openly and honestly is preferable to treating it as a taboo subject, and insisting that absolute abstinence under all circumstances is the only option.
My brother struggled with chemical dependency for about 30 years, and it was a terrible thing for him and those who love him. It doesn’t matter if the chemical is alcohol, marijuana, meth, heroin, Oxycontin, or anything else. Chemical dependency is a major problem in Northfield, as it is in probably every other community in the US. The most important thing this community could do would be to openly admit that chemical dependency is a major problem among not only young adults, but the entire population.
I caught a bit of a conversation on MPR’s Midmorning (host Kerri Miller and a father and son who have written memoirs, independently, about their hellish experiences with the son’s chemical dependency) which is germane to this conversation. Check it out at http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/03/06/midmorning2/.
We can’t afford to look the other way and pretend the schools, the DARE program, or anyone else is going to “take care of this problem” for us.
Great comments, Bruce.
Chemical dependency, or any other kind of addiction, is such an intensely personal reaction to situations and substances that it is up to parents to be in tune to their kids and shape their message accordingly. You and your brother grew up in the same home and with the same school and circumstances, yet he struggles and you were able to stay healthy. All kids are “at risk” but some more than others, so Sean is right that scaring everybody just causes cynicism.
When I wrote about education, principals would say that the students most at risk for chemical abuse are kids of people who are in denial about their own problems and so least able to be good models and mentors. So we can talk about what parents should do, but the ones who need the message aren’t listening or can’t hear it.
This requires so much more than having a lesson in a classroom. It takes friends and relatives and neighbors willing to step up and step in to make sure all the kids they know have at least one adult they can trust to see them through to adulthood.
That’s the real dare program, having every adult dare to make a difference in one kid’s life.
I was the “one out of 6″ (in Kiffi’s comment #5) who thought if DARE helped even one child it was worth the effort.
When the subject came up the first things I heard people say were DARE is not effective. I asked why they thought so, where is that statistical information? How was it obtained? I would like to read it.
My children went to school in Kenyon during their pre-teen years and experienced the DARE program. They would come home and talk to me
about it. We often discussed the “drug” issues and the peer pressure kids face.
I truly believe that if kids have a good self esteem they can handle peer pressure. However, many kids want to “try” different drugs. They just don’t want to get hooked. Do I think my kids have ever tried drugs? Yes. This does not mean that they think it is smart or that now as adults they have anything to do with it.
I thought the program was good at the time my kids had it. I felt it helped me as a parent in my efforts to educate my children about drugs. (It wasn’t just because Mom and Dad said)
I am sure the program can be improved. How? I am not sure. Anyone have any ideas?
Sean, what are the “lies” that are told to kids through this program? Were you told these lies? Is it lumping all drugs together as to harmfulness? I am sincerely curious as to what you think.
Thanks,
Julie
Julie said:
I went through DARE in fifth grade (yr. 2000) at Nerstrand Elementary. I wish I could remember more specifics, but the main thing I recall was the program being misleading about marijuana: that it leads you to more extreme drugs, that it’s more damaging to your health than cigarettes, and that it’s very chemically addictive.
I’m inclined to agree with Anne that the program is fundamentally flawed. I mean the name alone — Drug and Alcohol Resistance Education — suggests the idea of teaching kids drug-abstinence, not teaching them to experiment cautiously.
Sean, I know I’m asking a lot, but what would you include in a drug/alcohol awareness program? How would you teach it?
BTW, Bruce, thanks for your link to the MPR show in your post #13. It was, well, horrifying.
Also, I believe that both the middle and high school health classes were going to bring in speakers from the “Know the Truth” program this fall. I wonder if anyone heard how that went.
Well I can’t say that I’ve given that much thought to it, but I guess I would envision a program that:
I think there should be a program for parents of elementary school students — the parents who still come to teacher conferences. They should get information on using prescription drugs and alcohol carefully around their kids. They should be warned not to play up that cough medicine tastes like cherries or if they just take this medicine they will feel so much better. Children learn very quickly to ask for medicine when they have a tummy ache or vitamins because they look like dinosaurs or gummy worms. They wait for the good feeling when the medicine kicks in and soon know whether one pill is enough or two are needed.
We teach them very early to associate drugs with feeling good, then abruptly tell them drugs are bad. They know better.
Parents should keep all prescription drugs away from kids and count the pills. Same with alcohol. Many addicts are curious and start “experimenting” at 12 or 13. By the time parents talk to them it’s too late.
Parents should stress the importance of eating right, having a regular routine and using natural methods (rest, fluids, etc.) before resorting to medicine.
This isn’t about teaching drug awareness, or safe sex, this is teaching children how to be in touch with their feelings and their bodies and how to keep their lives in balance. Drugs, sex, money, cars, food, gambling, video games — anything that throws life out of balance can be a risk.
Griff,
My apologies in the delayed response. I have been ‘AFK’ for a few days dealing with work and school.
The reference to Wikipedia was absolutely not directed at you. It was more of a reference to the fact that I truly dislike the fact that the whole world is moving toward Wiki-P as an “authoritative” source.
I am still a very studious person, and believe that books and other references are much better than WP. WP is good for a quick lookup, but since I cannot cite it as a reference in any of my ongoing college work, I don’t rely on it. WP is only as good as those that post to it. Some information is good, some is bad, some is weak, some is wrong, some is biased. The only good thing is that it is all on one place. As long as you don’t use it as your single source of information, and choose to look deeper… problem is, some folks don’t. That is what I have a problem with.
I just see so many discussions, and so many folks using it as the only reference, and it bugs me. I just lashed out on it, possibly unfairly. At a minimum, I choose to take WP with a grain of salt, and look at the references and dig deeper for more.
Griff, again, it was not an attack on you. I am way past that. I am trying to keep my posts, and my actions as I would treat others in real life. I am trying to change, and treat those as I would want to be treated. As you may have noticed, I have been posting much less since the first of the year.
Griff, you are right. My post was quick, and flippant. However, it is the way I feel about Wikipedia. It was not meant as an attack, and not one directed towards you. I have made a conscious decision to not participate like that anymore, and I have left that perception in the past. I am done doing that. Being negative does no good. I choose to participate in a positive manner now.
I need to take a bit more time with my posts, and explain/support my opinions better. I will strive to do better.
In response to the discussion about DARE, I believe that ANY program is better than doing nothing at all. Northfield’s children need all the good guidance that they can get. To use that old saying… “It takes a village” to bring up our children.
To those that think DARE does not work, so be it. I appreciate your opinion, however, I would ask that they offer suggestions to what else we may be able to do to continue to get a positive message out to our youth?
As a parent, I constantly talk to my 9 year old about everything. I would also want other positive role models engaging my son at every available opportunity.
I will go and look a the WP references again… and see where they lead.
Griff, Ross, Tracy… keep up the good work, and thanks for putting up with me.
Regards,
-John Thomas
Apologies accepted, John. Glad you’re hanging in there with us!
Curt, the Know the Truth web site is at: http://www.knowthetruth.mntc.org/
John George: I think DARE is not better than nothing–I think that it is harmful because it teaches the officers who instruct it to spin drug information–and when students figure out that some of the information is wrong, they are not sure if ANY information is correct. Or if any police are telling the truth. Or if any adults tell the truth.
Drug education should be factual. The truth is, we do not have a definitive way of predicting who will be harmed by drugs. Some people took LSD when they were younger and they have a normal life now with normal children (as far as anyone can tell)–so they did not have chromosonal damage from LSD use. I had friends who had LSD slippled to them in their open can of POP (not beer.) Thankfully, they survived their “trip” but it was not something they chose to do.
We do not know who will become alchoholics. We don’t know who will become drug addicts–but we know that recovering drug addicts should not drink alchohol.
Nicotine is more addicting than Meth.
Alchohol causes more deaths, and more life problems, than ALL other ABUSED drugs (prescription or illegal) combined.
So, we need to speak truth to kids–that we don’t know which ones of them will be harmed by drugs–who wants to take the chance that it will be the 1st, 2nd or 3rd time they try something before it starts to be addicting or damages them in some way that they can’t tell?
And it is very nice to teach kids to resist peer pressure (would you jump off a bridge if your friends told you to?) That is simplistic. We have kids out there who are turning to their parents liqour cache or the medicine cabinet to fill a need. There are a lot of kids who need help and look for it in a bottle. They really don’t care about peer pressure or what the police say–we need to let them know there is somewhere they can go for help.
Sean- In reference to discipline, perhaps we are looking at two definitions. There is a connection that has been made between punishment and discipline. I wonder if that is underlying in your response to the word? I believe a more proper definition of discipline is the context of changing a behavior. For instance, a marathon runner “disciplines” his body to build up endurance. In academia, the various focuses are called “disciplines”. The whole implication here is that a person can change his behavior, beliefs, etc., as he applies himself to a “discipline.” This is exactly what a young person who is predisposed to abuse patterns needs to do. We are not animals, driven by uncontrolable instincts. We do have the ability to learn from our mistakes and change our behaviors.
This leads to my response to Bruce’s comment, “…I have serious doubts that D.A.R.E. can make any difference unless parents are engaged from birth on as partners with the schools in teaching about this issue.” This has got to be the best observation I have seen posted here. In our society of specialization, too many parents have given up the raising of their children to the “experts” in education. These educators should be merely reinforcing the values and directions we parents are instilling in our children. They are not supposed to be raising them for us. This is the common observation I have gotten from my three daughters and one daughter-in-law who are in education. They feel that many parents are passively involved in the lives of their children and are trusting the schools to straighten them out. This is a trend I believe must be reversed if we want to see our youth flourish. Perhaps my suggestion that D.A.R.E. include involvement of the parents would be the catalyst that would make the program work. In fact, I’m not sure ANY program will work if there is not involvement of the parents.
Jane- I think it was John Thomas who said that maybe D.A.R.E. is better than nothing, but that is ok. I agree with what you are saying. This is not a problem that can be handled simplistically. Take a look at my post #23. Like Bruce said, education of anything needs to start in the home with the family.
Sean: thanks for a really great list of suggestions, whether you say it was just a quick “off the top of your head”, or not. It looked pretty good to me.
I think the best program would be one that kids had a hand in structuring.
Julie: you also make a good point in saying that the program was a stimulus for your kids to come home and talk with you, and therefore the “prompt” of the school program was positive.
I still would like to know what it costs to put DARE in the schools, who pays for it, school? police? is it a gov’t subsidized program? How much time in the classroom is invested in it? Do teachers want it?
Anyone know what’s the most credible review/ analysis of the program…….
Jane: do you know?
Thanks Sean. I think you have some great ideas.
How about having, as Kiffi suggests, young people’s input along with kids who have been through rehab?
Sean, do you really think we should teach kids how to “experiment cautiously”?
Also, isn’t it because of the illegality of drugs that the police present the program?
Julie
October 11, 1993 USA Today did an article regarding the DARE program, research studies, and DARE program supporters who have continually attempted to suppress the results of the studies, which in a nutshell, conclude:
“A preliminary report from the RTI — analyzing eight studies involving 9,500 children — says D.A.R.E. has “a limited to essentially non-existent effect” on drug use. ”
The studies that have been done, including those by researchers hired by DARE, all conclude the same.
As a child of the sixties, I am skeptical of a program where the supporters attempt to refute or suppress analysis of their program rather than modify or improve the program. I don’t know how to tie into the 1993 USA Today, but I believe there are more studies and information, as well, I just don’t have time to follow up on that.
I checked out the website of Know the Truth/MN Teen Challenge, and frankly, found it to be shocking. It seems to have no connections with trained professionals in the field; the Board of Directors are mostly business people, no apparent medical, psychology, social work professionals.
If their agenda is other than ‘faith-based” they sure aren’t telling the public about it.
I am appalled from just an admittedly surface exploration, that the NF schools would bring in a group like this rather than make higher and more intense use of the committed professionals we have in NF and Rice County.
Unless their website is very misleading, and why would it be if they are sincere in dealing with a complex social health issue, they would appear to be UNequipped to deal with any substance abuse problems on a medical professional basis.
We have a community owned hospital. I fully understand the need for any hospital to be competitive in this very dollar-oriented , business health care system we have fallen into; but it is past time for our NF Hospital to answer the needs of this community and develop a comprehensive substance abuse program. It needs to begin with education and diagnosis, and progress through treatment, then follow up with all levels of patient and family support.
If the problem is as bad as some say, then such a program should also be profitable! And I don’t say that with cynicism, but with realism. Ask your community owned hospital to serve ALL the needs of the community.
When I was a kid, we were told all sorts of things about drugs. Many of them were absolute nonsense. Some of them were true. A lot of kids, once they found out that some of them were nonsense, didn’t believe the true ones either.
I know this is probably one of those radical ideas the world’s not ready for, but what if we had a drug education program that was honest with kids about the comparative risks, about which things are addictive — and which aren’t — and otherwise treated them like they were capable of making decisions, just a little? I would think that the long-term benefit of not having the entire program dismissed as transparent lies would be worth it.
Scare tactics turn out not to be especially effective…
*vindicated*
I need someone to give me the ground rules on other people’s comments.
Can we retort? If there are guidelines, please direct me to the location. I am possibly at the wrong location to be asking this question??? I would like to respond to Kiffi Summa’s observations about Teen Challenge. Especially in light of her bar room poll that she finds accurate. Thanks P.S, I just found the comment guidlines link.
Kiffi do you know anything about Teen Challenge other than what you have read on their web-site?
Do you know that Judges have the ability to remand defendants to their 60 day in-house treatment plan?
Do you think that trained professionals such as judges and lawyers would send juveniles to a non-professional treatment facility? Do you know the recidivism rates of the TeenChallenge programs? If their recidivism rate is really as low as their statistics say, then isn’t that proven effectivness?
Joe, I gather from your questions to Kiffi that you support Teen Challenge. Part of her objection to the program was that it was faith-based and lacked the oversight of medical professionals. Though it doesn’t make your questions any less legitimate, it is worth noting that you’re a pastor, and thus you could naturally have something of a bias toward faith-based programs like this.
Yes, Sean, I am a Pastor. Actually I am a Licensed Minister with the Assemblies of God. I have recently resigned as Pastor of Abundant Life Assembly here in Northfield, where my wife and I ministered for 17 years. My knowledge of Teen Challenge would be considered more than casual. There is no doubt that Teen Challenge is a Christian “Faith-Based” organization. Everything in life has some kind of “faith” base. An organization either recognizes a diety, or it does not. Or you may place your faith in other things such as human nature, psychology, or the medical community. Nothing in life is neutral. My concern is the assumption that anything religous is somehow dangerous or covert in their ultimate purpose. I don’t doubt that certain religous organizations have agendas that have negative motives. The question that needs to be asked is, why do these types of organizations such as Teen Challenge exsist? Actions speak louder than words. Teen Challenge saves Minnesota tax payers millions of dollars each year by providing free treatment to adult students, and minimal charges to juveniles. The State provides no funding directly to T.C. and any govermental funds which come through county programs go to pay for room and board. I will not bore you with all the figures, but check out how much a year-long treatment program costs the State of Minnesota. Medical professionals are very important, but so are Spiritual professionals. I personally believe that when you break your leg you should go to the doctor, and if you need someone to drive you to the clinic your pastor just might be the right person. His professional help is not in fixing your bones but calming your heart and speaking words of comfort. Pity the man who has no one to pick him up when he falls down.Teen Challenge works very closely with medical professionals and has a very strict policy on providing proper physical care to all of their students. Is Christianity a big part of Teen Challenge? Yes. If some other religious or non-religous organization wants to develop a more effecient way of treating individuals with life-controlling habits, please do! I think that financial hurdles will most likely prevent most “care-givers” from stepping into this realm of prevention and treatment.
Joe: I did not mean to imply that what you call my “barroom poll” was anything but the opinion of six people having a discussion at the Contented Cow. It was “accurate” only in reporting that consensus, having nothing to do with any larger selection.
I stand by my opinion of the website I looked at. I also believe a “spiritual” component is very important for each person’s life; but I do believe that when dealing with any substance abuse problem there needs to be a medical component also. There are simply too many medical ramifications of substance abuse to not include that component of expertise in the total equation. And that medical expertise is what I found lacking.
There are many “faith-based” help groups that have judges directing cases to them, for all kinds of assistance. The more persons, and organizations, that take it upon themselves to help cure societal ills, the better.
Please do not presume that I think anything with a religious component is “dangerous or covert in their ultimate purpose”. I said nothing like that.
I’ve been a supporter of Teen Challenge for several years. I challenge anyone to attend their annual event, talk with participants and not come away convinced of the powerful work they do. They have a tremendous outreach to people and it seems to work well.
But I believe the majority of their work is with people….youth and adults…that are already having trouble with drugs and alcohol. As Joe pointed out, the state does get involved in this program by providing financial support for the costs of living for the residents. They also expect to see success in the program, which is demonstrated on a regular basis.
I think Teen Challenge is a perfect example of a public-private partnership that works.
Kiffi, I was addressing Sean, when I used the statements that you took issue with, they were not intended as a personal retort towards you. I found your comments about Teen Challenge, to be presumptive from simply viewing a web site. You are the one who used the words, “appalled”, “shocked”, “unequipped”, “no connections”, and “profitable”. My questions to you were sincere in nature and my response to Sean was directed to him. I want to follow the guidelines as best as possible when inputing comments. Being a new voice in this ongoing community dialouge requires my careful questioning of any other blogger. I am sorry that I assumed to much about Sean’s mention of possible “bias”. I would be very happy to explain my statements towards Sean about “dangerous or covert”.
I am very passionate about Teen Challenge, you most likely struck a chord in my heart that resonates with high praise for their efforts.
I found a link to a video created by Minnesota Teen Challenge. The schedule on their website shows that they will be presenting their program for two days in the Northfield High School in April–it’s not like they’ve taken over the drug education component of the health classes. I believe the health teachers must have seen some value in their presentation since they must have invited them back after seeing them in last fall’s classes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=902uF_1g2ms
Here is what the Executive Director says on its website. This is NOT something that should be going through the doors of the High School.
Hi all,
I’m behind on this board and will be reading over the next few days to catch up since it looks like an interesting discussion. In the meantime, John George requested specifics on the potential damaging effects of alcohol on the teenage developing brain. The American Medical Association has a report on this which includes the following statements:
They go on to suggest specifics of what can be done to reduce teen alcohol use.
For the record, I’m opposed to DARE for the reasons others have outlined above. Also, for any who don’t know, DARE is the topic of next week’s Politics & a Pint discussion: see http://politicsandapint.wordpress.com/
If you are looking for some criticism of Minnesota Teen Challenge, try looking here. The second website is a goldmine of information. And yes there are success stories (lot’s of them) and it isn’t this that I am criticizing (though I could). It is the faith-aspect that should make it an impossibility to teach in public schools. We have this whole separation of Church and State things going on and Christ is central to the program.
http://www.citypages.com/databank/25/1235/article12351.asp
http://teenchallengecult.blogspot.com/
Josh, I don’t know you, so I am wondering why you feel opposed to this oganization? Is it the Jesus factor? WIth no sarcasim intented, do you think they might talk about God in an innapropriate way? If they intended on having a church service in the school don’t you think that the principal would object? I personally find no problem with Christians operating assemblies in school. If my doctor was a Christian I wouldn’t expect him to share Bible verses during my annual exam. Christians do have the ability to stay focused on teaching drug prevention to teenagers, without proselytizing them into their specific faith expereince. A number of the teachers in Northfield High School attend Christian churches and go to bible-studies, yet find the ability to separate work from church activities. I think that people (in general) are afraid that some one might hear the name of God in a public school. God’s name is spoken every day in school, sometimes nobly, yet more often not.
Sorry for the oops on sarcasm and inappropriate. My Bad! As my 12 year-old would say.
Joe,
It is nice to meet you. The thing I have an issue with is that the organization has an inherent and documented agenda that is religiously based. While it is permissible for public schools to teach about religion, it is not permissible to promote particular religious beliefs. If a Muslim or Catholic (or any religious) organization came in and taught about drug prevention, etc. it would be equally upsetting and illegal. I would have no problem with a secular organization doing this but NOT one that is religiously based. Even if a religious organization does not mention God, their organization is completely enveloped by religious dogma and it is in fact a mission of the organization to include Christ within its drug rehabilitation. This is the argument I have from a lawful stature. If we wish to get personal I could bring politics and funding sources of Minnesota Teen Challenge into the picture. You maybe okay with, and may agree with, these funding sources, but I do not. But this second argument is strictly from a personal level and has nothing to do with the legal issues I have.
Besides, from looking at the information the major differences MTC and a secular organization is that MTC uses Christian theology and doesn’t seem to have trained professionals. If you take away the Christian aspect, what the heck are the untrained professionals going to talk about? I’d rather have trained professionals talking to the youth at the high school.
Josh, I completely agree with you. Unless they’re there to talk about religion (and all religions are being represented), it’s just not acceptable to have a group claiming to be “blessed by God” in a public school.
Although I am not a parent, I agree with Josh that the Teen Challenge program is not appropriate in a public school setting. I did check out their Know the Truth website (sponsored by Walser Chevrolet). Perhaps they do secular programming in the schools…but even so…just the title “Know the Truth” is disturbing.
Oh, and they have a MySpace page too…only 80 members and 7 comments, so not very informative.
http://www.myspace.com/preventaddiction
Josh, more questions: What religous belief does Teen Challenge promote at their drug seminars? How do you know that religous oganizations are illegal in school settings? I have gone to multiple briefings on what is allowed in Public Schools and nothing has ever been considered illegal if guidelines are followed. Ask yourself this question, how many school assembly organizations have no religous underpinnings? I don’t know the figure, but I will guess that 75% of these groups claim some religous connection. How is it that hundreds of other Public Schools in Minnesota use organizations like MTC and lawyers have not been involved?
Let’s return to the original issue of results, or lack of results, by DARE.
MTC has a proven track record of results in drug treatment. I think most of the objection is the fact that Christians are involved. America stands for the rights of all citizens to express their feelings in a public setting. I grew up in Willmar, and my PUBLIC School was exactly that. It was a public school, not private. Public Schools should be the epitome of free expression(speech) and ideas within the guidelines of our constitution.
If a Muslim organization wants to have a drug treatment program that helps teenagers, let them. We live in America, where ideas and speech are still considered sacred. Even the speech I don’t agree with. The essence of a free society is to protect the public arena, so that all groups and/or creeds can operate free of censorship.
Public Schools should be on the cutting edge of First Amendment rights.
Joe: Once again, I must use the word appalled. How could you not, in your responses, say that at least some of your support for Teen Challenge comes from the fact that it is directly related to the Assemblies of God Churches?
That certainly is a factor in your appraisal of the organization; how could it not be? Surely you give your wholehearted support to any organization that is a “subset” of your church.
Let’s be clear; I need to reiterate…..The fact that it is “faith-based” is not what I find fault with. My objection is still based on the lack of medical professionals on the Board of Directors.
I question whether the High School is getting themselves into the same sort of precarious position as they did with the very controversial Music Assembly, some years ago, that had objectionable outcomes for many students; asa matter of fact I remember a very thorough letter of concern from the District Supt. at that time , detailing the problems caused by that Music Assembly.
Why revisit that territory?
Joe, I don’t think that it is the results that Teen Challenge reports to have that bothers Josh (and myself) it is the fact that the organization says that it is faith based that bothers Josh and I. The public school system is nonsecular and there for shouldn’t not bring in a faith based organization into teach. What they even teach during their seminar is not important (they are coming into my health class later this year, so soon I will have first hand knowledge of their tactics) it is the basis of their organization that is the issue.
“how many school assembly organizations have no religous underpinnings? I don’t know the figure, but I will guess that 75% of these groups claim some religous connection.” could you explain what you mean by this sentence please. I don’t understand what you mean.
Kiffi, I am happy to answer your question. Teen Challenge is under the “covering” or leadership of the Assemblies of God. Most genuine Christian organizations have some kind of accountability group. Even St Olaf college has affiliations with the ELCA. I know that the Board of Directors for Teen Challenge is filled with men and women from various Christian denominations. Here is a list of board members.
Darrel Amiot - Amiot Financial
Bill Bojan - Integrated Governance Solutions
Carol DeOtis - Edina Realty
Paul Flower - Flower & Schutz, PLC
Jan Hawkins - John Henry Foster
Dale Holmgren - Granite Pointe Partners
Jim Huseby - Becker Furniture World
Vicki Jefferis - Grace Manor
Peter Murlowski - Timber Craft Enterprises, Inc.
Daniel Mus - Brooklyn Printing
Terry Plath - Lawson Software
Steve Poppen - Minnesota Vikings
John Roise - Lindsay Windows
Rev. Richard Scherber - Minnesota Teen Challenge
Rev. Clarence St. John - MN District Council of the Assemblies of God
Frank Vennes - Metro Gem
3 of these individuals are directly connected with my fellowship. (Assemblies of God) Possibly others, cannot say for certain.
Before I was a Minister with the A/G I attended an A/G congegation and before that I was a member of Calvary Lutheran Church in Willmar. (Sen. Dean Johnson was my youth pastor.)
(The girls were nicer looking at the A/G church in Willmar. God works in mysterious ways!)
I supported Teen Challenge even when I was growing up in Willmar. Back then the Minnesota group was just starting. (U.S. TC started in late 50’s)
I support more non-A/G ministries than I do from my own fellowship.
Teen Challenge does a very good job of not over-promoting their leadership denomination.
Lest we forget, the Salvation Army is a Christian Denomination.
The American Red Cross-Clara Barton -her faith motivated her to help the hurting.
AA was started by 2 men who saw a need for supernatural intervention.
Samaritains Purse was recharged by a wayward son of Billy Graham
Franklin Graham and operation Christmas Child, last year, provided Christmas gifts to millions of children in 120 nations around the world.
I could go on! I support many ministries, Catholic, Protestant, or non-denominational.
Gary Gilbertson, from Northfield, who helps college students connect with other Christians on various campuses.
Ok! I’ll quit.
The point is, yes! they have A/G background, I find no conflict!
Joe, I don’t think anyone’s saying that religiously based organizations are inherently harmful, just that we need to be cautious about letting them into our schools — especially, as Kiffi pointed, when there’s not sufficient medical backing to match the religious inspiration behind the group.
(Red Cross and Salvation Army are curious examples, though, since both have been criticized for religiously “founded” conservative political positions; if Teen Challenge takes any similar positions, it would open up another can of worms of political organizations in schools.)
Joe, the problem is that the people who agree with a specific faith group seldom find its presence offensive or intrusive. I remember a choir director in Duluth who saw nothing wrong with limiting his class songlist to Western European church music, even though the rabbi’s daughter had to spend hours a day practicing it throughout the semester, then sing the carols at the ‘winter’ concert. Funny how few Christians saw this as a problem, yet when Somali women want to wear scarves and long dresses in gym class, those same people are very upset
It’s human nature. We think that what’s normal for us should be normal for everyone. That’s why public places should be places where we all can be normal in our own way as long as we don’t start forcing our version of normal on others.
I do think there’s a difference between donating toys or food to the Salvation Army and having the Salvation Army run programs in the school. If Teen Challenge ran a truly secular version of its program for public schools and a religious one for other audiences, fine, but it doesn’t — and that’s the problem.
Max, I don’t know you, but I like your first name. Possibly my children have been in your class. My wife tells me I have to quit blogging. Something about the fact that I need to get my resumes submitted.
I feel somewhat unleashed from my position as an outside observer. My congregation is now a total of 7. (Spouse, 3 children, a dog and Callie our cat.) Damage control is much simpler. I’m enjoying the new leeway to challenge conventional wisdom. I really don’t try to be agrumentative, it just happens. I am just as passionate about my philosophies of life as any one else. In the last 17 years I have only interjected myself into community debate, thrice: The big box argument , the welfare funding cuts by Governer Carlson in the mid 90’s, and “seperation of church and state” in 2001.
To clarify my statement: Most organizations that work with High Schools’ and specifically High School assemblies, seem to have religious roots.
The not-for-profit school assembly organizations seem to have strong roots in Christianity.
Not always, and not all with right motives. Some find it an easy way to stay employed.
I think that everyone should review what is and is not legal activity in our public schools. I would be happy to keep the discussion going if others, myself included, want to find out the “facts”. Just because you or I don’t like a group’s background, it does not change their right to pursue noble activity.
Helping young people addicted to drugs, leave that lifestyle, is desired by all. What Mother would balk at her child leaving a life of Meth and choosing to work at a Christian orphanage?
If there truly is a law that does not allow this activity, than all my points are moot and I have wasted your time and mine.
For me it isn’t about what is legal (I don’t have the ability to challenge an organization like this in court, and I don’t even pretend to know all the law surrounding it). For me personally it is about the fact that I do not believe in the existence of a higher power (I don’t want to start that argument, I am merely stating my personal beliefs). I have never experienced the program that Teen Challenge presents in schools, so I judge the religious content of the program. Where I have a problem is when a person’s religiousness is equated with their worth (eg. to over come drugs you must embrace god, people that are religious are inherently more moral). It when religion is used to solve problems of people that aren’t religious, is where I have a problem. I admire the work that some of the organizations do in solving problems, but I don’t think that it is fair for these groups to present to a class where attendance is obligatory. Also religiously based groups should never be given federal funding, if they want to have access to the coffers of the entire population of the United States then they have to reflect the views of the entire United States (namely, no denomination or religious group is followed by the entire population, so therefore the government must remain unbiased towards all members of its population).
I hope my post didn’t fall to far out of the scope of its intention.
Max
I have never experienced the program that Teen Challenge runs in schools so I can’t judge the content of the their program.
That is how the sentence was suppose to read. Sorry.
Anne, I feel awkward not knowing who I’m responding to, being a new contributor, I feel like I need to tell you something about myself. Jumping right in seems cold and distant.
Here are 3 questions to ponder?
Is being nice or caring completely secular in origin and operation?
Can a person forgive someone solely on the merit of human will and human will alone?
Is love a secular philosophy that can be repeated in a classroom and passed on to future generations with some sense of standardized definition?
Kiffi & Sean- Are you really talking about the separation of church and state or are you promoting the separation of church FROM state? At face value, it seems more like the latter. Just as a for instance, if something works, but does not fit into your particular belief that it should NOT work, does that make it wrong? Just wondering.
As far as your points about the physiological effects of drugs, can these really be resolved without addressing the spiritual defeciencies that lead to the abuse? Just wondering, again. It seems there is a need for both sides, here. Physically removing the drug from the body will definitely have an effect for the positive. What do you do then with the emotional needs if you do not address the spiritual causes underlying them? If we are not going to be allowed to present this case in the public school setting, then where is the opportunity for critical thinking? Or, is there a line of academic thinking that is not allowed to be criticized?
John, can you clarify what distinction there is between the two?
Sean- In the original writing of the constitution, the founders stated that the government shall make no laws restricting religion, or establishing a state religion. It was Thomas Jefferson who said, “…there needs to be a wall of separation between the state and the church,” and that line is not in the Constitution. He wrote this in response to a letter from a pastor expressing fears that the new government would begin to interfere in the operations of the local churches. In the current application of this, the trend is to remove any type of “religious” views, especially Christian, from being presented in the public schools. The original intent was to keep government out of the churches. Now, we see a move to keep any type of church or faith based organization, as Kiffi alluded to, from being able to present their views in the public school, or city hall, for that matter. I just believe this is a blatant infringement on the freedom of speech and the freedom of access, let alone the civil rights of we Christians.
I also think it is ironic that the original bastions of higher learning were established for the specific purpose of training men to preach and pastor congregations springing up in the newly settled terrotories. How far we have drifted from that purpose.
Just another point, if the secular methods and institutions for freeing people from drug abuse are so successful, why do we not see the same results from them that we do from Teen Challenge, specifically? Just wondering.
Felicity- Thank you for some statistics. I really appreciate them.
Well though I don’t consider it an infringement of the “civil rights of Christians,” I would say that, yes, the government (particularly schools, since school attendance is mandatory) should be avoiding any possible endorsement of a religion — and I got the impression that that sentiment is shared by Max, Josh, Anne, and Kiffi (sorry to be putting words in your mouths if I’m incorrect about this, guys).
Since the argument here is ethical perhaps more than it is legal, I’m comfortable saying that we can look beyond the 1700s. The fact is that, at that time, there was no compulsory public education, and no similar opportunity for forcing religious beliefs on people. The Framers could not envisioned such a problem to set up safeguards for. Even if they could have foreseen it, though, it was 200 years ago; we can’t follow their exact intentions, because their exact intentions are antiquated — we must instead follow their principles. One of those principles, if not as complete as some of us in this thread have expressed a desire for was separation of church and state.
Joe it is statements like this that upset me: “Is being nice or caring completely secular in origin and operation?” Being nice or caring may be based in religion for you, but for me it isn’t, so it is fair offensive that you would allude to religion being necessary. The other two statements have the same problem.
I can vouch for Max on that one, comment #61. He’s a nice, caring kid.
John G. - Your understanding of the Constitutional separation of church and state, and the origins thereof, match mine. Our interpretations differ.
The relevant portion (indeed, the first portion) of the First Amendment:
Two conditions: Establishment. Free Exercise. They are not to intersect in a purposeful manner.
So when you say:
I disagree. If you, as a private citizen, wish to pray in a public space, like a school, go to it. (Provided the school is open and available to the public at the time.) But you cannot expect that the school should pay taxpayer money - in the terms of either payment for services, or time out of the school day - to bring in a group that espouses the practice of a particular religion (in this case, Christianity) as the key method of their success.
This would hold true if it were a group telling the kids that the only way to defeat drugs would be to run away from the concept of God and embrace atheism, or to find the Buddha, or Gaia, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster - though an exception might be made in that last case due to obvious satire.
Yes, their cause is good. Yes, they may even be successful. However, I doubt the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists want to be told that drugs are going to get them unless they embrace Jesus. I’m drug-free (well, except for caffeine) and not religious, for instance.
The separation of church AND state is not a crystal clear, perfectly-drawn line. There are gray areas with which most people are comfortable, and there are extremists on both sides of the equation.
Many public schools, for instance, have Christian students groups, which to me seems fine provided the school administration affords equal access and opportunity for students groups that are secular or of another religion. Northfield High School itself rents out its auditorium (I think it’s the auditorium.) every Sunday to a Christian denomination. Again, this may be a bad thing for an extreme “Church / State separatist”, but I think nearly all people see the difference between that situation and the same group holding its services during the school day.
Anyway, I wish this group great, continued success. I heartily endorse their goals, even if I do not support all of their methodology. Hmmm… I think I could say the same about most religions in general.
No idea why I used the phrase “students groups”…
Not once, but twice!
Yikes… ugly, just plain ugly… “student groups” suffices.
Wow. I’ve gotten a bit behind here. So many important topics to weigh in on here - I wish we had a few separate threads to discuss the various issues.
On the original topic: DARE. This one is fairly simple. It has been thoroughly studied, and there is no evidence that it works. That alone should be enough of a reason not to waste our children’s precious school time on it. Also, I too am concerned about using police officers to spread scare-tactic style information (and perhaps misinformation). The school has a valid role in educating kids on the facts about drug and alcohol use and abuse, and there are plenty of concerning facts about use of these various substances that kids should hear about without resorting to either misinformation or an intentional lack of information a la the equally ineffective “just say no” and “abstinence only” campaigns.
The fact is, teenagers and young adults are learning to make decisions for themselves. They’re growing up, and they have to learn how to make smart choices. The best thing schools can offer is honest, accurate information.
(And I disagree with Sean on his suggestion that this should NOT include the legality of use of these substances. Legal implications of drug use are valid points of discussion, as legal penalties are actual negative results of drug use. Of course, “illegal” is a very different concept from “wrong,” and we should always be careful not to conflate the two, no matter how much they may overlap.)
Teaching morality, on the other hand, is a far more problematic thing for schools to get in to.
As John George said,
Schools are excellent places to pass on information, and to learn methods for gathering, analyzing, and interpreting information. In the context of Civics, they need to learn the rules of society: what laws are, why we have them, an how we interact with them. (That is, very briefly: we are bound together by an agreed-upon set of laws that maintain order, and allow us to coexist peacefully (and hopefully prosperously) together. We also have methods for revising and refining those laws.)
However, schools need to stay away from teaching “morality.” The fact is, if you get twenty of us in a room, there is no way that we will agree on what morality is, where it comes from, or what its tenets are. Morality is very personal, and has to come from the home, according to the beliefs of that family.
If people want to tell kids that the only way to avoid (or quit abusing) drugs and alcohol is to trust to God, that’s a message that is perfectly appropriate to the home, church, or synagogue. However, that is not a message that is based in evidence. For starters, plenty of atheists (and buddhists, etc.) do not abuse any of those things.
However, in the schools, our kids are a captive audience, and we cannot allow any group that proselytizes to speak to that captive audience. We can’t allow a Buddhist into school to tell your kids that the only way to achieve global peace is to embrace one’s harmony with the universe as a whole. Nor an atheist to tell your kids that religious beliefs are the cause of all the ills of society. And not an Assembly of God lay minister who wants to tell your kids that the only way to kick a drug habit is to ask his God for help. (Oh, and apologies to all the groups that I just grossly mischaracterized with those cliched, fictional, examples.)
Unfortunately, I have to admit that I am no longer sure exactly where the law stands on what is (or is not) allowed in schools, but I know it is a heavily-litigated issue. I know only that, with the replacement of liberal Supreme Court Justices with conservative ones, that legal threshold has shifted in the last several years. I would propose that “The Seperation of Church and State” would be an excellent topic for discussion at Politics-and-a-Pint sometime this spring.
Oh, and in response to Joe Dokken’s
Can be.
Yes.
Probably not. Love is an inherently difficult thing to define, because “love” means so very many different things to so very many differnet people. But do you really believe that un-christian people are incapable of love, compassion, and forgiveness?
They are valid points of discussion, yes, but they’re not health-related and not relevant to health class. By talking about illegality, you really risk muddying the medical facts of the drugs.
Oh, and Brendon - I wholeheartedly agree with your explanation (post #62) of the First Amendment. Thanks for that.