A college roommate of mine would often end an argument between us by saying "You can't argue with the numbers. It's science." You would think that were true, but it seems that in today's political landscape even the most basic statistics have a way of being misinterpreted, misused or swept under the rug altogether. How else would you explain our government's current educational agenda? From D.A.R.E. to abstinence only sex-ed, prevention programs that have consistently failed to show results continue to be the best funded.

A long awaited federal study on abstinence only sexual education, commissioned by Congress back in 1997, came out in April of this year. The study concluded that teenagers who were subject to abstinence only sex-ed, were just as likely to engage in sexual intercourse as those who were given comprehensive sexual education that included harm reduction techniques. Is this something to be shocked about? Not really. In the past ten years several studies have cast huge doubts on the effectiveness of abstinence only education. A 2005 Columbia University study made headlines when its researchers found that despite a slight delay in initiating intercourse, students subject to abstinence only education were more likely to practice blatantly risky sexual behavior, such as not using contraception or getting tested for STD's (Journal of Adolescent Health, Volume 36, Issue 4, April 2005, Pages 271-278). The government still refuses to fund anything other than abstinence only education.

Just as well, D.A.R.E. continues to be the only federally funded option for drug education in schools, and is therefore the most prevalent. In 2004 the Journal of American Health published a landmark study on Project D.A.R.E. that compared the drug use of student who finished the program to those who's schools chose not to participate. Using meta-analysis techniques on all previously significant (read: peer reviewed) D.A.R.E. research, the author's findings fell in line with what many already knew was true: D.A.R.E. was ineffective in preventing students from using drugs or alcohol. Statistically, the majority of students end up experimenting with drugs or alcohol by the end of their high school years and D.A.R.E. has done nothing to change this. The study was not equipped to show whether student who did experiment with drugs or alcohol were more likely to minimize risky behavior due to comprehensive drug education, because non-D.A.R.E. based drug education is virtually non-existent. But by looking at the abstinence only sex-ed studies, one has to wonder if harm education techniques would be useful in preventing unnecessary risk when students chose to experiment with alcohol or drugs. Teaching student how to minimize risk when experimenting with drugs might be a controversial idea, but it is similar to teaching students how to reduce the risk of STD's. Would it be great if we could find a program that prevented teenagers from smoking marijuana after school? Sure, but realistically students are not going to stay away from drugs and alcohol any more than they are going to stay celibate. This is where science starts to contradicts policy. The government continues to waste our time and money on programs that are grounded in anything but reality. Not only have both of these programs completely failed to live up to their expectations, statistics seems to indicate that they are potentially harmful to our young people. Ironically, the Bush administration has rallied behind the No Child Left Behind Act, which distributes money based on performance and results. Unfortunately, the rules don't seem to apply to their own failing programs.

Labels: DARE