The importance of building and maintaining trust in alcohol, tobacco, and other drug education classrooms and hurdles to open communication.

Abstract

This research examines the importance of trust in the classroom, and answers the following questions: 1) is trust important to create and maintain in the classroom? 2) What is the significance of trust between a teacher and a student, and 3) do students trust their drug and alcohol educators? In-depth interviews were conducted with 38 middle school students. Analysis of the transcripts reveals the importance of trust in the classroom environment. Trust is important not only between teachers and students, but also between students and their peers. In addition, hurdles" to the effective transmission of important information about alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs (ATOD) were discovered. Chief among these revelations was the discovery that students perceive that asking questions about ATOD is tantamount to a tacit admission of guilt for having used or for contemplating using controlled substances. Implications for designers of curricula, drug and alcohol educators, and teachers of other sensitive subjects are discussed.

Key Words: drug and alcohol education, teaching strategies, trust in the classroom, communication

INTRODUCTION

The Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (1987) requires that schools receiving federal support money must educate their youth about the risks associated with the use and abuse of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs (ATOD). Schools have a number of options for complying with the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act, and different schools in a number of states use a combination of approaches. Traditionally, these prevention programs are deemed successful if they help youth make healthy decisions for themselves regarding drug and alcohol use in the present and the future. Another measure of a program's success could be whether or not a youth develops a strong and healthy bond with an educator, such as a classroom teacher or a Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program (D.A.R.E.) police officer during the process of his or her ATOD education. This could be viewed as a success, as research has indicated that young people are more likely to prosper with the help of at least one positive role model in their lives (Garbarino, 1999; Werner & Smith, 1977).

In order to provide the most effective lessons to youth regarding the dangers associated with the use and abuse of ATOD it is important for researchers to consider how certain curricula, learning environments, and educators impede or enhance learning about this topic. Researchers will frequently dissect and evaluate programs by looking at the individual components of the curriculum. Researchers test each teaching strategy to see if one method is more effective than another at helping youth make healthier decisions. Examples of curricular components that researchers have investigated include: activities that are age appropriate, whether or not the exercises are engaging to youth, if the materials are relevant to youth, if scare tactics or information-based tactics work, if peer education works, or if touting abstinence has any effect on a youth's decision regarding drugs and alcohol. In addition to curricular components, two other factors that significantly impact students' learning have been far less investigated. The first is the effects of the environment or "context." This refers to factors such as the shape of the room, being in a formal classroom or in a church basement, arrangement of desks, ambient noise levels, classroom norms and regulations, and overall classroom emotional climate. The other relevant factor meriting deeper investigation when evaluating an educational environment is the significance of the person who assumes the role of teacher in a drug and alcohol classroom. Little research has been done on this subject. The work that has been done demonstrates an interaction between the learner and the teacher, where a learner's overall cognitive growth is affected by the presence of certain educators (Goslin, 2003; Greeenberger, Chen, & Beam, 1998; Hansen, 1998; Tobler, 1992). The success or failure of any drug and alcohol intervention or prevention program seems to be rooted in both the personality attributes of the presenter and in the curricular components of the lesson. One without the other stands a good chance of failing (Tobler, 1992, 2000). The findings in the present study are geared toward helping to make educators more effective in the ATOD classroom.

The present paper focuses on the relevant qualitative data gathered from the interviews conducted for a larger study, and addresses the following primary question: How important is it for educators in drug and alcohol classrooms to build and maintain trust in the classroom? This research presents answers to this question, other relevant findings that surfaced as a result of this inquiry, and then discusses their implications for drug and alcohol educators, and for other teachers who have the important task of trying to convey any emotionally, politically, or culturally sensitive topic to youth.

METHODOLOGY

In order to respond to the questions presented in this paper data were collected using 38 transcripts from one-on-one interviews with youths. All of the data analyzed for this paper were qualitative. However, a quantitative instrument was used to develop the interviewee list. It was the desire of the researchers to be able to speak with students with a variety of skill levels. It was feared that if schools were asked to provide their own list of names of students to be interviewed that this list would consist only of high functioning youth. It was thought that schools would wish to present only their best students to a group of outside researchers because these students, with their close and positive affiliations with their schools, were also the group most likely to have parents or guardians sign and return consent forms. To avoid this dilemma a survey was used to generate a more comprehensive and wide ranging list of youth who then could be invited to be interviewed. This system is described in the sections to follow. With this in mind the present work could technically be classified as a mixed methods study, but only qualitative data were analyzed for this paper.

Participants

Seven schools were used in this study, all from the northeast, and all but one appear to be in communities that would be referred to as rural. One school appeared to be on the border between being in what would be described as a rural, or maybe a suburban school district. Information about race was not collected on the surveys. However, based on school data and on researcher observations the schools had an overwhelmingly homogeneous makeup of students, primarily white and middle-to lower-middle class. Table 1 presents the racial break down of the study's population (data provided by the schools) and table 2 presents the grade level and age breakdown of the students interviewed.

Interview Selection Process

A survey was administered to all students in either the sixth, seventh, or eighth grade in the selected schools (for a total of 809 middle school youths). One grade level was selected over another based on when students in that particular school had most recently completed a section on substance abuse education (either a teacher-facilitated substance abuse awareness and education program, or a D.A.R.E. officer led-program). Barring extended absences and other extenuating circumstances, every student who filled out a survey had completed a multi-week lesson on ATOD. Surveys were handed out and collected by either a homeroom or a first period teacher. The survey population consisted of 417 males and 389 females (with three not responding to this question about gender). Using a system developed for this study, a risk level was assigned to each student. Establishing a risk level was a key factor to this study, because the researchers felt it was important to speak with students with a range of abilities and experiences. It was hypothesized that youth in either a higher or a lower risk bracket may offer responses unique to their situation. Searching for these differences is valuable for gaining a complete understanding of how to best educate youth in a mixed ability classroom. In this study, a "1" represents a youth in the highest risk bracket and "4" represents a youth in the lowest risk bracket.

Prior to filling out the surveys students were told that the instrument was "confidential" and not "anonymous," meaning that peers, teachers, and administrators could not identify the survey's author, only the researchers could accomplish that. To meet this objective the cover page contained a number that corresponded with a number on the back of the last page of the survey. When students received the survey they signed the cover page and then removed that page. All cover pages from a particular class were colleted and then sealed in an envelope before the students completed their surveys.

Assessment For a Risk Category

Risk data for an individual is confidential, and gaining access to this sort of information is very difficult. As a result, no school was willing to furnish this information. The interviewer was not able to ask students directly about their own use of illicit and illegal substances, so another system had to be developed to assign risk level to an individual subject. Six survey questions accomplished this task by asking about a subject's peer group and not directly about his or her own personal experience with these substances. The six survey questions relating to a participant's risk level were adapted from validated survey instruments used by Search Institute, University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future, or Southern Illinois University's CORE Institute.

Research has shown a relationship between an individual's attitudes and behavior regarding dangerous substances and that of the peer group with which this individual associates (Asher & Coie, 1990; Hebert, 2004; Svensson, 2003). In other words, by assessing the perceived values and behaviors of a group of youths one can then make judgments confidently about the substance abuse patterns of an individual from that peer group. For example, one survey question asks whether or not a "close friend" approves or disapproves of the items on a list of illegal substances. The more the "friend" approves of these items, the higher the risk level can be assigned to the individual survey respondent. Another example would be the question where the technique was reversed by asking "how much you (the subject) think doing the following things will hurt other people." Again, the survey did not ask directly about drug use, but instead asked what the subject perceived to be the dangers associated with drugs, alcohol, and cigarette use. The less danger he or she connected with these behaviors, the higher the risk level assigned to this individual. A final example would be the question that asked about how connected the subject was to his or her school. Research has shown that youth who are strongly attached to their schools are less likely to be at risk (Harachi et al., 2006; Henry & Slater, 2007). Furthermore, students who are negatively connected with schools, and who end up with frequent suspensions are students who are likely to end up being involved with maladaptive and antisocial behaviors. The more often they are suspended by schools the more likely they are to be at risk (Hemphill, Toumbourou, Herrenkohl, McMorris, & Catalano, 2006). The less the subject reports being involved with school activities and relationships, the higher the risk level assigned to him or her. The selection of the risk assessment questions was based on the research done by Scales and Leffert. Their work indicated that youth with many developmental assets were likely to be involved in other positive behaviors (such as success in school, exhibiting leadership, and not using illicit substances). Scales and Leffert found that performance in school was related to the number of developmental assets a person had. The larger the number of assets that one has the better their performance in school (Scales, Benson, Roehlkepartain, Sesma, & van Dulmen, 2006; Scales & Leffert, 1999).

It is noted that some of these measures may be weak when considered in isolation because they are based on students' perceptions of their peer group's feelings about drugs and alcohol. For example, it is known that college students will often overestimate their peers' use and acceptance of drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes (Berkowitz, 2004; Page & Roland, 2004). It is not unreasonable to assume that middle-school youth will do the same thing, thus reducing the validity of the response to a question about perceptions of peer usage. Consequently, if used alone to determine a youth's risk level this question may produce misleading results because in this case students' actual use may in fact be less than their perceived level of use. In the case of school involvement there is an indication that in order to have a positive connection to one's school one need only have a single strong connection to it. Consider two students for example, one is a member of the color guard, debate team, and volleyball team, the other is only a member of the drama club. Both students are likely to feel connected to their school community and there is no reason to suspect that one student is any more or less attached to their school. Hence, a system that calculates the sum of all one's involvements may be misrepresentative, because one strong connection may be as meaningful as nine connections. However, when measured together in the context of responses to all six risk questions on the survey that relate to risk the combined number creates a strong measure for "risk rank". Questions about an individual's risky behaviors could not be asked, and schools would not provide this information. As a result, confidence was obtained for the variable "risk rank" anecdotally. The bases for this were primarily the feedback from school officials who were asked if the lists of students provided to them included students from "both ends of the spectrum," meaning high and low risk youth, and interview tests done by the researcher. In the end it was determined that a wide range of youth had in fact been interviewed.

Selecting Youth for Interviews

A total of 38 youths were interviewed for this study. To obtain maximum variation a purposeful sampling system was used (Patton, 1990) to create an invitation to interview list. Youths were selected for interviews in the following way: the computer randomly printed out a list of all the students in a particular risk bracket. Only the student's number and corresponding risk rank code were visible. Using the cover page of the survey (removed prior to filling out the survey, see surveys details) the students actual names were reconnected to their actual surveys. Names from each of the four risk brackets were sent to the schools to be invited to be interviewed. Figure 3 displays the risk ranks of the youth interviewed.

Sending Active Consent Forms Home to Parents and Interview Set-up

Once school officials had the names of the students requested for interviews, the school then mailed a letter to the selected students' parents or guardians. All youth who participated in the interviews had to have the consent of their parent or guardian. In addition, in order to commence the interview, all youth had to sign an individual consent form at the time of the interview. Once permission slips were received by the school, the author of the study worked with school staff to set up interview times that did not conflict with school events, testing, or important classes. Interviews with students were held on school grounds and during the school day. Most interviews were held in private and/or in low traffic areas in the school. One school conducted interviews in the library, which was not private but did not seem to affect the quality of the interviews. The interviews lasted between ten and 25 minutes each. Each was tape-recorded.

Conducting Interviews

A semi-structured interview style (Creswell, 1998; Seidman, 1991) was used with the interview questions serving as a guide (one such guide is included in appendix A). These general questions allowed the interviewer flexibility to follow up on responses and to explore unanticipated topics raised by the interviewees. Taping the interviews freed the interviewer to focus on establishing comfort and rapport so interviewees would express themselves honestly. Techniques to build rapport included sequencing of questions from straightforward to complex, listening carefully enough to ask well-placed and thoughtful follow-up questions, allowing the interviewer to reveal his own thoughts when asked, and making eye contact with subjects (Seidman, 1991). Notes were taken to save key ideas for later questions or analysis.

The exact wording of the interview questions were designed with input from the research team, which consisted of the special committee, a representative from the organization that funded this research project, and the author of this paper. During the course of this study, interview transcripts were analyzed. These preliminary analyses were used to refine the interview question guide. As a result of these preliminary analyses, the guide was modified several times to make room to ask new questions about topics of merit that surfaced and to eliminate questions that failed to yield desired information.

Analyzing the Interview Data

At the onset of this study the investigation had general notions about what the interviews might reveal. As a result, a constant comparative analysis approach to data analysis was adopted (Creswell, 1998; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Goetz, 1984). As the analysis progressed, categories that described interviewees' perceptions of their trust and comfort levels in their ATOD education classes were created, tested, and revised. Initial categorizations were developed, then reviewed and compared to the transcript data, a process repeated throughout the study. The on-going analysis provided a means to monitor the quality of the interviews and to adjust the interviewing when needed. The disadvantage is that earlier interviews provided less detail than later interviews, and certain questions are not asked during all interviews. Overall the process ensured that subjects were probed, in depth, and in areas relevant to this study (deKoven & Trumbull, 2004). Where possible the exact number of interviewees asked a certain question was presented in conjunction with the number of interviewees who responded in a specific way. This is done to show the reader exactly how prevalent a certain response was.

FINDINGS

Interviews of 38 youths were transcribed, entered, and analyzed in the software program Folio View (Nextpage, 1999). The interviews produced the following findings.

Is Trust Important and Why?

The interviews supported the hypothesis that trust was an important element to have in the classroom. A careful analysis of the transcripts revealed that 38 out of 38 youths questioned said that trust was important to have in the classroom. The interviews uncovered two key elements of why trust is so important to have with the person or persons one speaks to about drugs and alcohol.

Bad information, The first reason for trusting the person you talk to about drugs and alcohol is because the other person, if not trustworthy, might give you "bad information." Of the 34 youth asked, "Why is it important to trust the person that you talk to about alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs" 13 expressed this as a reason why trust was important. One young person expressed this concept in this way.

   When you're talking to somebody about drugs and alcohol you need to
   trust them, because they might be lying to you telling you "oh no
   this stuff is fine you can do a little of this, you can shoot some
   heroin, it won't hurt you, ah you know you can smoke some marijuana
   and be bad and it won't hurt you!"

   Another youth echoed the sentiment below.

   Because they (other people) could be lying to you, they might say
   it (drugs) was a good thing and that you should do it.... but it's
   not a good thing and I know that.

Another example of a response that typifies students' concerns about being led off track about drugs and alcohol by a person one cannot trust reads in this way.

   Because like if you just go to a regular person and you don't trust
   them or anything you don't know if they are telling you the truth,
   you never know if you don't trust them they could be lying to you
   and stuff. These kids in my grade who do that type of stuff and a
   lot, they say "oh, cigarettes are not that bad for you." And worse
   yet about sex, some guys are like, "don't use a condom you can't
   get pregnant!" Some guy was trying to get me to do that and I'm
   like "no, I'm not stupid," I mean come on.

You ask, you are, A second reason why trust is important is that the person with whom one is talking might tell others that you have asked questions about drugs and alcohol. On the surface this issue seems like a violation of confidentiality. This finding is referred to as 'you ask, you are." Middle school students when asked, seem very sensitive about having other people know their personal business or about having other students infer something about their life choices with regard to drugs and alcohol. This study revealed that students appear to be concerned that by taking the initiative to ask a question in class about drugs and alcohol, others (classmates and teachers) will assume that the questioner is using drugs or is thinking about using them. When the question was asked, "Why is trust important to have with the people with whom you talk about drugs and alcohol?," this response is typical of that given by many youths.

   So they don't go running their mouth. I don't trust too many
   people, I mean it is (a small town) and if you tell someone you are
   going out with someone else it is around in two minutes, it is out
   of control. Same thing for drugs and stuff, who's gotta know?

   A similar response is listed below.

   Yes, because you don't want people going around the school saying
   "you know so and so (does this and that)"

Responses like this one below capture the dilemma for students. On the one hand, the person below indicates the need to have more information about illicit substances but, at the same time, this youth displays a reluctance to ask questions fearing that someone might "talk," implying that this youth's supposed interest and secret desire is actually to use drugs.

   Sometimes you need to ask questions, personal questions about what
   happens when you do them (drugs) ... um ......., (but then you)
   don't want them going and blabbing what you said around and telling
   everybody.

This next statement shows one student's thought about how to avoid the "you ask, you are" phenomenon.

   I think maybe, if they put it (their question about ATOD) in a
   different context, "like a friend of mine," this or that but I
   don't think they would really feel that comfortable asking it right
   out.

One final quote that captures this concept of "you ask, you are" explicitly reads as follows.

   If you can't trust the person who you talk to about it and to keep
   it quiet that's no good. I don't think people would want anyone
   else to know what they were talking about. If they were talking
   about drugs and alcohol people might start to get ideas like he
   must be doing drugs if he asks so many questions.

Do Students Trust Their ATOD Educators?

The question now arises; do youths trust their ATOD classroom teachers? About half (18) of the subjects were asked this question directly about trusting their teachers. Of those who were asked, "Do you trust your ATOD educator?" no one said "No." It appears that students trust their ATOD educators to give them accurate information about drugs and alcohol, but they are less confident that teachers will keep the information secret (just asking questions implies use or pending use). One student expressed this sentiment exactly.

   Yes I trust (my teacher)! (They) give me the right information
   about things (drugs and alcohol), so I know it is not false.

However, the majority of the students' responses have revealed another, deeper rooted issue with regard to asking questions of classroom teachers who act as drug and alcohol educators.

   I'd talk to (my teacher) because I know it (our conversation) would
   be confidential; if you had their word, I would feel safe to ask
   and know that it's not going to be everybody's business.

The interviews supported the notion that students trust the wisdom of the information that their drug and alcohol education classroom teachers provide to them, but they doubt teachers can keep the substance of these conversations private. What then was the source, or sources of this perception? A possible answer was revealed in the following set of interview responses. One student alluded to the fact he or she knew about the mandated reporting laws that require teachers (and other professionals) to share certain types of confidential information with authorities. In the remarks below the student was talking about a teacher who had a special role in the school to educate youth about drugs and alcohol, a role that was perceived to be different from that of a regular school teacher.

   I mean, she can help us, like, if you have a question about the
   stuff. She can help you more than like a (non-health) teacher can
   because I mean I don't know, I'm not sure if they are like, they
   are required to say something to somebody if they think you are
   going to do something bad.

In the case below, when the student was referring to "unless someone should know" the student meant a mandated reporter, telling someone about someone's plans to hurt oneself, others, or someone hurting him or her.

   (You need to trust the person) because you'd need to think that
   they won't tell like anybody. They won't tell other people about it
   unless they think that someone should know the stuff.

Another response points to an acknowledgement that teachers may treat students differently if they ask about drugs and alcohol (again "you ask, you are" is important here).

   Because if you loosen up and talk to a teacher about your personal
   stuff or something then they watch you more closely, they watch you
   a lot more than they used to.

There is an implication here that students don't want this extra attention from teachers, and as a result they will not ask them for help. Finally, another student expresses this sentiment about unwanted extra attention from teachers who think that a student does drugs and alcohol.

   I probably would not talk to him (my classroom teacher) because I
   mean he's been in the schools for a while and stuff and I think he
   knows like what's going on. I mean my parents know (what's going
   on) and my teachers know but I mean you don't always feel like you
   can trust your teachers ... and stuff because I mean you feel like
   you can trust them but then you don't! You don't want to say
   anything to them because you think they might act differently
   towards you and stuff like that. But (my D.A.R.E. Officer) he's
   good for questions like that he knows what is going on.

The above student talks about seeking out his D.A.R.E. officer rather than his classroom teacher for information about controlled substances because the D.A.R.E. officer will be less likely to have an impact on this child's academic and/or social life in school since he or she is not in the school regular basis and holds no direct power over a student's life in school.

Asking questions in class: To probe deeper into the effects of "you ask, you are" on students asking questions in a public setting, such as that in a classroom, students were asked: "Do you think a student who did drugs or alcohol would feel comfortable asking questions in class?" This question allowed for an investigation into what perceived conditions might be like for youth in a drug and alcohol classroom. Learning that privacy issues exist as a result of the perception that asking about drugs and alcohol in public ultimately reveals a person's actual behavior, this struggle was feared to be compounded for students whose connection to these substances would be greater and whose comfort talking about such topics would therefore be further compromised. The responses to this question are displayed in figure 4.

The four students who responded "Yes, they would feel comfortable" gave no explicit reasons for these answers. No thread or trend was observed in their responses. However, it should be noted that that researcher did not press the participants to explain their "yes" answers to this question. In hindsight applying a little more pressure to provide a more comprehensive response to this question would have been useful.

Students who responded "No, they would not feel comfortable" gave consistent and telling responses about their perceptions about the climate in drug and alcohol education classes for teens. Of the eleven youths who said "No," five indicated responses that were identical to the concept of "you ask, you are." An example is listed below.

   They won't ask in class because they'd be shy and they really
   wouldn't want to tell anyone because they are probably embarrassed
   about it.

This set of questions produced another finding that sheds important light on the way all drug and alcohol education classrooms are set up. Of the eleven youths who said "No" to asking questions "in class," five said that they would feel comfortable asking their drug and alcohol educator questions, but not in front of the entire class.

   Maybe not in class when there are some people in class that would
   be like ... (talking about your business). It would be better (to
   ask) after class about it (drugs and alcohol with a teacher), or in
   the hallways. This way other people won't know your business and
   they (other people) won't be really mean and disrespectful about
   it.

A similar sentiment was expressed by another youth regarding the benefits of asking questions outside of class.

   They'd (kids with drug and alcohol issues) rather talk in private
   because they didn't want other people to think that they were using
   drugs.

In the example below, a youth who admitted earlier in the interview to being an experimenter with drugs and alcohol, confirmed the suspicion that asking questions with the class present would be an uncomfortable hindrance to open communication. An interesting thing about this quote is that this student who admits to using illegal substances feels conformable talking with a D.A.R.E. officer, but not in the company of his peers.

   I feel uncomfortable asking around everybody else.... very
   uncomfortable!

   Out of class I'd feel comfortable talking to the officer.

The interviews revealed important information about the importance of trust in the ATOD classroom. These findings point to curricular adjustments that can be useful for drug and alcohol education presenters and planners, and are discussed in the next section.

One final example of a youth's "No" response to the question about students who use drugs and then asking questions about them in class produced a slightly different response.

   Like if he asks a question, like..... "What kinds of drugs are bad
   for you?".... and he finds out that it (drugs and alcohol) is bad
   for you and he does it. It's kinda hard for him to ask questions
   because he does it and he doesn't want to know (the truth about
   drugs and alcohol).

Differences Between Risk Brackets?

The design of this study was specifically geared toward creating the opportunity to speak with youths from various risk levels. When interviews are separated, and transcripts of remarks from youths in all four risk brackets are compared, surprisingly, differences are not found. The researchers hypothesized that youths in lower risk brackets would feel less susceptible to the effects of "you ask, you are" and that they would feel more comfortable asking questions in class about drugs and alcohol, because they presumably have had few, if any experiences with illicit substances (and vice versa for youth in higher risk brackets). The few cases that displayed evidence to support this hypothesis are within the quotes presented in the previous section. First, were the youths who offered their unsolicited admonition that they had in fact experimented with drugs on more than one occasion in the past. This participant (a risk rank "1" youth) exaggerated the words, "very uncomfortable!" to describe their situation with regard to their comfort level while asking questions in class. Support for these differences between risk level was visible again where the four students indicated that it was their perception that youth who did drugs would have a harder time asking question in class than youth who did not. While no one risk group was more or less likely to make a statement about trust or comfort while asking questions in class, statements did surface indicating that youths in higher or lower risk brackets may have specialized concerns that educators should address to maximize the benefits the students can receive from their ATOD education.

DISCUSSION

This study was designed to provide more research to help support drug and alcohol education presenters and planners. The study reveals information about the importance of trust and about the kinds of trust needed to make the classroom a more effective place for learning. The results concerning the importance of trust were not surprising given the large body of research surrounding the effects of fear and anxieties on the human psyche and learning. What is new and of great interest are the hurdles to building and maintaining an effective learning environment in classrooms where sensitive topics are covered. A successful classroom educator controls not only the dynamic between teacher and students, but also inter-student relations. In addition, the skilled classroom educator creates an open climate in class by calling attention to students' perceptions about what teachers can and cannot keep confidential, and addressing the fact that asking questions in class is not tantamount to admitting illegal substance use. Finally, effective classrooms create opportunities for students to ask questions of the teacher in a private one-on-one context. Allowing for these sorts of teaching techniques insures the greatest educational impact for the largest number of students. Creating these learning environments for students is essential when talking about sensitive topics like alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. However, these principles are also important when teaching about other potentially intrusive, embarrassing, or controversial topics like gender issues, racism, classism, and social and political activism.

Trust

The results of this study indicate that trust between an ATOD educator and a student is an important factor, as is trust between a student and his or her peers in the ATOD classroom. Youths indicate that it is important to trust the person they talk to about drugs and alcohol, because if they don't then this person might "give you bad information," or this person might "tell others that you use drugs." The interviews suggest that teachers are viewed as credible sources for information about ATOD, but that they are perceived as unreliable with regard to keeping confidential the questions put to them. Students are anywhere from vaguely to acutely aware of the laws that require teachers to share certain types of information (mandated reporting laws).This fact makes teachers an unlikely place for students to turn for this type of information because in students' minds their questions are not secure with their teachers. Knowing this, there are a number of implications for educators. Primarily, it is clear that ATOD educators need to build into their curricula opportunities to make connections with youth that foster trust and openness. One way teachers can do this is to discuss with youth beforehand the specifics about mandated reporting. If teachers tell students up front what things they can and cannot keep confidential then students can feel confident talking to teachers about these sensitive topics.

"You Ask, You Are."

One major hurdle to youths asking questions in class comfortably is that they fear that, just by asking a question in class, others in the room, apparently classmates more so than teachers, will think that the questioner is using drugs or is planning on using them. Apparently, students assume that if one has questions about these substances, one also is having a personal issue with them. The notion that one is looking for a wider breadth of knowledge about ATOD simply for the sake of knowledge is not considered. Creating opportunities for all youth to meet their drug and alcohol educators individually not only builds the trust between the two, but also allows students to ask questions if they wish without fearing that someone "will tell." In addition to making efforts to build trust between teachers and students, efforts should be made to build trust among peers. Young people are very concerned about their image (Brumberg, 1997; Pope, 2001), and this study supports that notion. Youth are very concerned about teachers, coaches, and peers finding out that they do drugs. They are also concerned that others might think that they do drugs, whether or not they do.

This fear is not without merit. In 1948 sociologist Robert K. Merton introduced the concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy (Merton, 1948). This process operates mostly in the unconscious mind, but its effect on others is significant. In the school system, the self-fulfilling prophecy works this way: 1) Teachers form first impressions of students. 2) These first impressions lead to judgments and perceived expectations of the student. 3) These then lead to the teacher treating the students in ways that are consistent with these expectations. 4) If the teacher's treatment of the student is consistent over time, then the student's behavior will reflect the teacher's expectations (Taubert, 1997). In this fashion, a teacher has inadvertently created a student's future, rather than allowing the student to design his or her own. If a teacher's first Impressions are positive, then this will help the student succeed. However, if the teacher has negative first impressions then the student will suffer. Teachers form first impressions of students almost immediately, causing some students to start at an advantage over other students. Grounds for teachers forming these biases include: gender, race, speech, dialects, and body builds (Good, 1987). In addition, researchers have found that teachers make judgments that shape their expectations of students based on physical attractiveness and beauty (Ritts, Patterson, & Tubbs, 1992), socio economic status (Teddlie, 1989), and even based on the language skills and perceived intellect of the student's parents (Feiler, 1997). Teachers may also form judgments about students whom they suspect are using drugs and alcohol.

The transcripts provided evidence that students are aware of this effect as it is played out in everyday classrooms. As a result, they are afraid to ask questions in class. ATOD educators must bring to the foreground in classrooms the notion that just because one asks questions about drugs and alcohol does not mean that he or she is doing or considering doing them. An explicit attempt should be made to address this concern. In addition, teachers should provide youths with anonymous ways to ask questions in class. One way to do this would be to have students write their questions down on index cards without using names. Teacher would then mix the cards up, pass them out, and have each student read the question on the index card he or she received. A teacher could answer these questions at the end of each class period or students could write answers to questions on index cards and the teacher could again mix the cards up and read the answers. This system serves dual functions. The first is that it enables the teacher to gauge the level of understanding in the class; the second is that it prevents the class from turning to any one group of students in the class for answers to questions believed to be within their realm of expertise. In substance abuse education classrooms it does not build a trusting environment to have students identifying fellow students who are perceived to know more about drugs and alcohol. The same is true for a class dealing with race, class, and gender issues. It is counter productive to ask individual members of a certain race or gender to speak for all members of that race or gender. One other technique for creating ways for students to ask potentially sensitive questions in class is to have students start each question with, "someone I know has.....", "I have a friend who...... ", or " I have heard that..... ". For the purposes of drug and alcohol education, Tobler found that interactive classrooms, where communication is present between teachers and students and between students, are the most effective learning environments (Tobler, 2000). Tobler's ideas are supported in the notion of the "authentic classroom." This concept, presented by Newmann and Wehlage (1993), indicates that open classrooms characterized by supportive, attentive, caring educators, produce the greatest effects for students (Newmann & Wehlage, 1993). Since a great deal of emphasis has been placed on the value of human interactions that are safe and trusting, it seems important to offer suggestions as to how educators can build these types of relationships with their students, particularly in classrooms where drugs and alcohol are topics.

Open Conversations Outside of Class

This research suggests that the designers of ATOD curricula need to build into their materials many opportunities for students and educators to interact with each other in meaningful ways. These interactions should be designed to facilitate conversations of depth and significance. Such conversations seem to require that educators make time to meet with youth on an individual basis. These one-on-one interactions should be used to build openness and congeniality. These conversations need not be focused only on drugs and alcohol. A legitimate use of an educator's time could be used talking about hobbies, sports, and television, for example. These personal stories can serve as windows into a person's inner workings and set the groundwork for deeper, more meaningful and open conversations about core issues, such as school performance, family struggles and abuse, and drug and alcohol use and abuse. Informal interactions between teachers and students should happen periodically over the duration of the class in order to facilitate these trust building conversations. Teachers' daily schedules are very demanding and making room for such one-on-one interactions is not an easy feat. However, if room is made then this will strengthen the bonds between teachers and students, and it will allow students to feel more comfortable asking questions both in class and in private.

Implications for Teachers

In this study, students acknowledged awareness that teachers will treat students differently based on their expectations. If teachers assume that youth are using drugs and alcohol, then their expectation will likely be lowered, and this will in turn limit the student's future options. The "you ask, you are" phenomenon makes it hard for youths to ask teachers questions about drugs and alcohol, fearing that this will lower teachers' expectations of them. If teachers explicitly address students' "you ask, you are" concerns, then much can be done to alleviate students' apprehensions and fears, hence opening crucial lines of communication.

Teachers, because of their consistent and routine contact with students, seem to be optimal people to transmit important information to youth. However, this study and another (Tobler, 1992) suggest that teachers are not appropriate people to accomplish this task when it comes to sensitive subjects like drugs and alcohol. In this study, teachers were rarely selected as the first person a student would voluntarily send a sibling to for help regarding drugs and alcohol. If steps are taken by educators to build and maintain trust in the classroom then teachers can hope to improve their ability to act as role models and guides to needy youth.

As stated earlier, teachers should openly explain that asking questions about drugs and alcohol does not necessarily equate to the questioner doing drugs or thinking about using drugs. One additional step that teachers can take to help youth relax would be to address their worries that teachers treat youth differently if they know that a young person does drugs. To accomplish this, teachers should first attempt to be reflective and make a personal inventory of their own biases and preconceptions. Teachers should then try to be aware of the expectations they hold for certain students, and they should be aware of the subtle or not so subtle ways in which these biases affect the ways they interact with students. Reflection is an important part of being a good teacher (Posner, 2000) and is not a one time event; rather it is a consistent endeavor to make one's vocation more productive and enjoyable. After teachers have looked inward and taken mental notes about their conceptions and misconceptions of youth, then they can open the subject up for conversation to the entire class. Allowing youth to talk about their concerns and fears that teachers will judge them based on perceptions about substance use or abuse may help to open the lines of communication in a drug and alcohol classroom between teachers and students. Teachers should not question the existence of the self-fulfilling prophecy, rather they should acknowledge it and talk about how students can work around it or with it. Open and lively conversations about how teachers view students who "do bad things" and about how students' fear they have been misread by teachers can only help to bring down emotional barricades that prevent open conversations and learning about drugs and alcohol. Trust is what lubricates society (Putnam, 2000), and open and honest dialogues create the components necessary for trust to form and for conversations about sensitive topics to successfully proceed.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Schools and teachers are powerful entities in the lives of youths. Students know that how well they do in school can and will affect them for their rest of their lives. With growing numbers of youth reporting lower levels of trust in adults (Bronfenbrenner, McClelland, Wethington, Moen, & Ceci, 1996), and consequently lower levels of trust in the organizations that adults manage, it is ever more important that efforts be made to build bridges with youth to help them navigate the struggles of adolescence successfully. This study has indicated that teachers, in the eyes of youth, are risky people for them to talk to about drugs and alcohol because of their potential ability to stymie a student's progress through school. This discovery is disappointing, as teachers certainly have a great potential to impact the lives of so many students.

The classrooms of today are changing. Mainstreamed and inclusive classrooms are showing up in increasing numbers of schools (Cohen, Brody, & Sapon-Shevin, 2004). At one time students with mild to significant disabilities were educated outside of the regular classroom. Today more than 48.2% of students with disability spend a significant portion of their day being taught in regular schools and in regular classroom settings (Education, 2004). In these mixed ability classrooms teachers will have students from a wide range of socio-economic backgrounds, from two and single parent families, and from many different racial and ethnic groups. These factors and more when taken together present a picture to educators of a classroom filled with mixed ability learners. With this comes the high probability that teachers in one classroom will encounter students who have never had any exposure to ATOD, and other students who have had daily contact with these substances. Because of this educators need to be especially sensitive in the handling of issues relating to drugs and alcohol so as not to inadvertently alienate students who might very well benefit the most from having a positive adult role model in their teacher.

Teachers can more fully capitalize on their deeper knowledge of individual students, and in their increased ability to connect with youth by suspending their own judgments and by addressing with students the concerns identified here. Furthermore, teachers should be able to implement and talk about their ability to support and encourage students even when students are in fact using and experimenting with illegal substances. Teachers should be able to accept the notion that students can do bad things, while this does not make them bad people. This message should be made clear to all youth. The information presented here may help teachers and administrators as they pave the way for more open and honest interactions between teachers and students.

The implications in this work extend beyond the ATOD classroom and can be applied to any type of classroom, especially classrooms where sensitive subjects are taught. The first example transcends the classroom. The location of informational brochures about sexually transmitted diseases, condoms, suicide, and depression (those typically found in college health departments) matters if health centers want people to take them home and read them. If these reading materials are placed out in plain view, in a waiting room where all can see, then students will be less likely to pick up any of these materials. The fear is that if one picks up a pamphlet about HIV then one must be experiencing a problem with that disease. The notion that the brochure might simply contain useful information may not be considered. A second example might be a student in a diversity education classroom who seeks to learn more about another race or culture but is afraid to ask because of fears of being perceived by others as a racist. In my own experience teaching diversity classes almost all of my students preface any questions dealing with another race with a comment to this effect, "Now I am not a racist or anything," but "I'd like to know" or "I never knew that" or "I don't understand why" so-and-so does this or that? Here again the fact that students fear the perceptions of other students, and this stymies conversation in class. Consider a student in a government or a political science class, students frequently wish to raise questions about the actions their government is taking, but they are fearful that others in the class will assume that their questioning of the actions of their government might be perceived as being "unpatriotic." Students are fearful that asking questions about the government's actions might be seen as offensive to fellow students, who perhaps have family members in the military. If teachers address this phenomenon using one of the suggestions presented here or another of their own design then students can feel more comfortable opening up in class, they can learn more, and they can gain more from their education.

APPENDIX A

Participant Interview Guide

Student:        School:        Date:          Consent: yes     no

Rapport building questions:

How old are you?

How long have you been going to school here?

Tell me about what you remember learning in school about drugs and
alcohol?

Tell me about your favorite teacher. What subject do they teach?

Describe for me what you knew about drugs and alcohol before
you took your drug and alcohol class?

Now describe for me what you now know as a result of your drug
and alcohol class.

Focus questions:

Is trust important to have with the person with whom you talk to
about drugs and alcohol?

Describe for me why it is important to have trust in the person or
people you talk to about drugs and alcohol.

Would you trust your ATOD educator to give you accurate information
about drugs and alcohol?

Describe for me why you think that ATOD educators are good sources of
information for you about drugs and alcohol?

Who or what are the first places you would turn for accurate
information regarding drug and alcohol and why?

Do you think a youth who uses drugs and alcohol feel comfortable
asking an ATOD educator questions about drugs and alcohol in class
or outside of class and why?

If you were using drugs and alcohol would you feel comfortable
asking your ATOD educators questions in class?

If you were using drugs and alcohol would you feel comfortable
asking your ATOD educators questions out of class?

Can you tell me what an ATOD educator can do to make it easier
for you and other students to ask questions in class?

Did you get to ask any questions in class? Describe for me what
kinds of questions you asked in class? Were there questions that
you did not ask in class? If so why did you not ask them? Were there
questions that you might more likely ask someone else besides your
drug educator? Are you the type of student who asks questions in class
often?tionship between parental

AUTHOR NOTES

Aram deKoven is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Education at the State University of New York at Cortland. He recently completed his doctorate at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY. The research for this paper is derived from a larger, year-long study which was the basis of his dissertation. Other results from that study are expected to be released at a later date. The dissertation, and subsequently this paper were supported with funds from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in New Jersey. Thanks to Drs. Judy Bentley, Michelle Kelly, Joseph Rayle, and Deborah J. Trumbull for reading drafts of this paper and for sharing valuable comments and observations. Additional thanks to the late Jeff Merrill, who on a handshake provided the funding for this research. Please direct all questions and comments to Aram deKoven at D-215 Cornish Hall, SUNY Cortland, Cortland NY 14053, or via e-mail [e-mail]

REFERENCES

Asher, S. R., & Coie, J. D. (1990). Peer rejection in childhood. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Berkowitz, A. D. (2004). An Overview of the Social Norms Approach. In L. Lederman & L. Stewart (Eds.), Changing the Culture of College Drinking: A Socially Situated Prevention Campaign, Hampton Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U., McClelland, P., Wethington, E., Moen, P., & Ceci, S. J. (1996). The State of Americans This Generation and the Next. New York: The Free Press.

Brumberg, J. J. (1997). The body project " an intimate history of American girls. New York: Random House.

Cohen, E. G., Brody, C. M., & Sapon-Shevin, M. (Eds.). (2004). Teaching Cooperative Learning; The challenge for teacher education. New York: State University of New York Press.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.

deKoven, A., & Trumbull, D. J. (2004). Scientific Outreach for Graduate Students: participation effects and hurdles. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 7(1).

Feiler, A., & Webster, A. (1997, September). Teacher predictions of young children's literacy success or failure in four primary schools. Paper presented at the British Education Research Association, York, UK.

Garbarino, J. (1999). Lost Boys." Why our sons turn violent and how we can save them. New York: The Free Press.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Goetz, J. P. & LeCompte M. D., (1984). Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Good, T. L. (1987). Two decades of research on teacher expectations: Findings and future directions. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4), 32-47.

Goslin, D. A. (2003). Engaging Minds: Motivation and leaning in America's schools. Oxford: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Greeenberger, E., Chen, C., & Beam, M. (1998). The Role of 'Very Important' Non parental Adults in Adolescent Development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27(3), 321-343.

Hansen, D. T. (1998). The importance of the person in the role of teacher. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 15(5), 391-405.

Harachi, T. W., Fleming, C. B., White, H. R., Ensminger, M. E., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., & Haggerty, K. P. (2006). Aggressive Behavior Among Girls and Boys During Middle Childhood: Predictors and sequel of trajectory group membership. Aggressive Behavior, 32(4), 279-293.

Hebert, R. (2004). Transdisciplinary Omelet. American Psychological Society, 17(5), 7-8.

Hemphill, S. A., Toumbourou, J. W., Herrenkohl, T. I., McMorris, B. J., & Catalano, R. F. (2006). The Effects of School Suspensions and Arrest on Subsequent Adolescent Antisocial Behavior in Australia and the United States. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39(5),736-744.

Henry, K. L., & Slater, M. D. (2007). The Contextual Effects of School Attachment on Young Adolescents' Alcohol Use. Journal of School Health, 77(2), 67-74.

Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. The Antioch Review,8,193-210.

Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. (1993). Five Standards of Authentic Education. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 8-12.

Nextpage. (1999). Folio Views personal electronic publishing software: User's guide Version 4.0. Provo, Utah.

Page, R. M., & Roland, M. (2004). Misperceptions of the Prevalence of Marijuana Use Among College Students: Athletes and NonAthletes. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 14(1), 61-75.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (2 ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Pope, H. G. Jr., & Geoffrey H. Cohane. (2001). Body image in boys: A review of the literature. 29(4), 373-379.

Posner, G. J. (2000). Field Experience: A guide to reflective teaching (5 ed.). New York: Longman.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Ritts, V., Patterson, M. L., & Tubbs, M. E. (1992). Expectations, Impressions and Judgments of Physically Attractive Students. Review of Educational Research, 62(4), 413-426.

Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Roehlkepartain, E. C., Sesma, A., & van Dulmen, M. (2006). The Role of Developmental Assets in Predicting Academic Achievement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescence, 29(5),691-708.

Scales, P. C., & Leffert, N. (1999). Developmental Assets: A synthesis of he scientific research on adolescent development. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.

Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as Qualitative Research. New York: Teachers College Press.

Svensson, R. (2003). Gender differences in adolescent drug use: The impact of parental monitoring and peer deviance. Youth and Society, 34(3),300-329.

Taubert, R. T. (1997). Self-fulfilling prophesy. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Teddlie, C. W. C. S. (1989). Self-fulfilling prophesy and attributes of responsibility: Is there a causal relationship? (TM015083): ERIC Document Reproduction service 323211.

Tobler, N. S. (1992). Drug Prevention Programs Can Work: Research Findings. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 11(3), 1-29.

Tobler, N. S. (2000). Lessons Learned. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 20(4),261-274.

United States Department of Education, (2004). 26th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1977). Kauai's Children Come of Age. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

Aram deKoven, Ph.D.

State University of New York at Cortland

TABLE 1

Racial make-up of study group in year of interviews (in percents)

           American Indian
           Asian
School     Pacific Islander   Black   Hispanic   White

School A   1                  2.3     1.4        95.3
School B   1.2                2.3     .6         95.8
School C   .8                 2       .7         96.5
School D   .8                 3.7     1.0        94.4
School E   0                  1       1          98
School F   0                  0       0          100
School G   .7                 1.4     .4         97.5

TABLE 2

Youth Interviewed by Grade Level and Age

                Grade

         6    7    8   Total

Number   14   17   7   38

Youth Interviewed by Age

                  Age

         11   12   13   14   Total

Number   5    12   18   3    38

TABLE 3

Risk Rank of Youth Interviewed

Risk Rank (a)

         4    3   2   1   Total

Number   15   7   8   8   38

(a) The lower the risk number the higher the risk for the student.

TABLE 4

Students Who Felt That Other Students Who Used Drugs and
Alcohol Would Feel Comfortable Asking Questions in Class

         Yes they would       No they would       No response
        Feel Comfortable   not feel comfortable

Total          4                    11                11