WASHINGTON, March 31 (UPI) -- The UPI think tank wrap-up is a daily digest covering opinion pieces, reactions to recent news events and position statements released by various think tanks. This is the second of three wrap-ups for March 31.
The Cato Institute
WASHINGTON -- A democratic Iraq? Don't hold your breath
By Patrick Basham
The Bush administration's plan for the reconstruction of a post-Saddam Iraq includes the laudable goal of a democratic political system. This new democracy, it is argued, will serve as a model throughout the Islamic world, like the so-called Velvet Revolution that swept across Eastern Europe at the Cold War's end. Unfortunately, the White House will be disappointed with the short-to-medium-term result of its effort to establish a stable democracy in Iraq, or in any other nation home to a large Muslim population.
This pessimism stems from an appreciation of what causes democracy to flourish in a society. Political scientist Ronald Inglehart, an expert on political culture and democratic values, studied the responses to the World Values Survey, which provides data from more than 70 countries, including 10 Islamic nations, ranging from dictatorships to Western democracies.
Inglehart analyzed the empirical linkages between the survey responses within each society and the society's level of democracy, as measured by the Freedom House political rights and civil liberties index. As a result, he concludes that "the prospects for democracy in Islamic countries seem particularly poor."
Although only one in four countries with a Muslim majority is an electoral democracy, in most Muslim countries a high level of popular support exists for the concept of democracy. But that's not enough. According to Inglehart, "overt support for democracy seems a necessary but not sufficient condition for democratic institutions to emerge." Other factors are necessary.
The long-term survival of democratic institutions requires a particular political culture that solidly supports democracy. The following cultural factors play an essential, collective role in stimulating and reinforcing a stable democratic political system:
-- Political trust, i.e., the assumption that one's opponent will accept the rules of the democratic process and surrender power if he loses an election;
-- Social tolerance, the acceptance of unpopular groups (e.g., homosexuals);
-- Economic development (a high standard of living legitimizes both democratic institutions and incumbent politicians);
-- Popular support for gender equality;
-- A high priority on freedom of speech and popular participation in decision-making.
According to Inglehart, among Islamic societies, levels of trust, tolerance, economic well-being, gender equality, and the priority given to political activism fall far short of what is found in all established democracies.
As in other societies, the condition of Islamic democracy is tied to the respective political culture, which is clearly tied to the respective level of economic development. This is because democratization is much more likely to occur -- and to take hold -- in richer rather than in poorer nations. A higher standard of living breeds values that demand greater democracy.
Hence, Turkey, the most economically developed and socially tolerant Islamic country, is currently in a democratic transition zone with the likes of South Africa. Meanwhile, the Iranian political culture exhibits positive signs of democraticization, as befits the second wealthiest Islamic country. But like so many of its poor brethren, Iraq will not be a stable democratic nation until it is much wealthier than at present.
However, President Bush's plan for the democratization of Iraq is premised upon the adoption of a constitution that will be successfully implemented in the short-term by groups of Iraqi elites bargaining among one another. Bush is placing a large wager that the formation of democratic institutions in Iraq can stimulate a democratic political culture. If he's correct, it will constitute a democratic first.
On the contrary, the available evidence strongly suggests that the causal relationship works the other way round. During the 1990s, two leading political scientists studied 131 countries and concluded that economic development causes higher levels of democratic values in the political culture that, in turn, produce higher, more stable levels of democracy. In sum, a political culture shapes democracy far more than democracy shapes the political culture.
Therefore, the Iraqi democratic reconstruction project will be a good deal harder than White House theorists expect. In practice, the realization of Iraq's democratic potential will depend more on the introduction of a free market economic system and its long-term positive influence on Iraqi political culture than on a United Nations-approved election.
(Patrick Basham is a senior fellow in the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute.)
The Ludwig von Mises Institute
(The LVMI is a research and educational center devoted to classical liberalism -- often known as libertarianism -- and the Austrian School of economics. LVMI seeks a radical shift in the intellectual climate by promoting the market economy, private property, sound money and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention.)
AUBURN, Ala. -- The truth about D.A.R.E.
By Paul Armentano
If popularity was the sole measure of success then D.A.R.E., the "Drug Abuse Resistance Education" curriculum, that is now taught in 80 percent of school districts nationwide, would be triumphant. However, if one is to gauge success by actual results, then America's most pervasive and expensive youth drug education program is (and always has been) a gigantic and incontrovertible flop.
So says the General Accounting Office in a scathing new report that finds the politically popular program has had "no statistically significant long-term effect on preventing youth illicit drug use." In addition, students who participate in D.A.R.E. demonstrate "no significant differences ... (in) attitudes toward illicit drug use (or) resistance to peer pressure" compared to children who had not been exposed to the program, the GAO determined.
The GAO critique was the latest in a long line of stinging evaluations that have plagued D.A.R.E. throughout its 20-year history. Established in 1983 by former Los Angeles police chief Daryl -- All casual drug users should be taken out and shot! -- Gates, the D.A.R.E. elementary school curriculum consists of 17 lessons -- taught by D.A.R.E.-trained uniform police officers -- urging kids to resist the use of illicit drugs, including the underage use of alcohol and tobacco. Upon completion of the curriculum, which often relies on scare tactics and transparent "just say no" ideology, graduates "pledge to lead a drug-free life."
Numerous studies indicate few do. These include:
-- A 1991 University of Kentucky study of 2,071 sixth graders that found no difference in the past-year use of cigarettes, alcohol or marijuana among DARE graduates and non-graduates two years after completing the program.
-- A 1996 University of Colorado study of over 940 elementary school students that found no difference with regard to illicit drug use, delay of experimentation with illicit drugs, self-esteem, or resistance to peer pressure among D.A.R.E. graduates and non-graduates three years after completing the program.
-- A 1998 University of Illinois study of 1,798 elementary school students that found no differences with regards to the recent use of illicit drugs among D.A.R.E. graduates and non-graduates six years after completing the program.
-- A 1999 follow-up study by the University of Kentucky that found no difference in lifetime, past-year, or past-month use of marijuana among D.A.R.E. graduates and non-graduates 10 years after completing the program.
In fact, over the years so many studies have assailed D.A.R.E.'s effectiveness that by 2001 even its proponents admitted it needed serious revamping. However, rather than shelving the failed program altogether, D.A.R.E.'s advocates called for expanding its admittedly abysmal curriculum to target middle-school and high-school students -- a move that was lauded by many federal officials and peer educators despite a track record that would spell the demise for most any other program.
So why does D.A.R.E. remain so immensely popular with politicians (Both Bush I and Clinton endorsed "National D.A.R.E. Day.") and school administrators despite its stunning lack of demonstrated efficacy? Researchers writing in the American Psychological Association's Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology offer two explanations.
The first is that for many civic leaders, teaching children to refrain from drugs simply "feels good." Therefore, advocates of the program perceive any scrutiny of their effectiveness to be overly critical and unnecessary.
The second explanation is that D.A.R.E. and similar youth anti-drug education programs appear to work. After all, most kids who graduate D.A.R.E. do not engage in drug use beyond the occasional beer or marijuana cigarette. However, this reality is hardly an endorsement of D.A.R.E., but an acknowledgement of the statistical fact that most teens -- even without D.A.R.E. -- never engage in any significant drug use.
Of course, those looking for a third explanation could simply follow the money trail. Even though D.A.R.E. has been a failure at persuading kids to steer away from drugs, it has been a marketing cash cow -- filling its coffers with hundreds of millions of dollars in annual federal aid. (According to the GAO, exact totals are unavailable but outside experts have placed this figure at anywhere from $600 to $750 million per year.)
In addition, police departments spend an additional $215 million yearly on D.A.R.E. to pay for their officers' participation in the program, according to The New York Times.
But this total may be only the tip of the iceberg. According to a preliminary economic assessment by Le Moyne College in New York, the total economic costs of officers' training and participation in D.A.R.E. is potentially closer to $600 million.
Regardless of its ultimate financial cost to taxpayers, there is no doubt that D.A.R.E. has become its own special interest group -- aggressively lobbying state and federal governments to maintain its swelling budget. Like a junkie, D.A.R.E. is addicted to the money, and will do whatever it takes to get it.
Meanwhile, its proponents remain in a state of denial, caring more about political posturing than embracing a youth drug education program that really works. After 20 years of failure, isn't it about time someone dares to tell the truth?
(Paul Armentano is a senior policy analyst for The NORML Foundation in Washington, D.C.)
The Pacific Research Institute
(PRI promotes individual freedom and personal responsibility as the cornerstones of a civil society, best achieved through a free-market economy, limited government, and private initiative. PRI researches and analyzes critical issues facing California and the nation, and crafts strategies for policy reform.)
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Capital Ideas: New study supports PRI report
The influential education research organization EdSource recently published a report that supports key findings in the Pacific Research Institute study "They Have Overcome: High-Poverty, High-Performing Schools in California." That PRI study, released in the fall of 2002, profiled eight public elementary schools whose low-income students achieved at high levels. The PRI study analyzed the curricula, teaching methods, standards implementation, and other factors at these schools and found a common formula for success.
First, the schools PRI profiled use a structured, systematic, phonics-intensive reading program called Open Court. The schools ensured that all teachers had adequate training in Open Court's direct-instruction teaching methods, which involve teacher presentation of material followed by practice, review, and frequent assessment. These proven methods are an anathema to liberal educators who favor student-centered learning, whereby students discover their own knowledge and teachers act as mere facilitators.
The schools were also highly focused on implementing the state's rigorous academic content standards, not only in the classroom but also emphasizing the standards in teacher professional development activities. Further, the schools had high expectations of their students.
A similar formula for success is echoed in the EdSource report, "Lowest-Performing Schools," released in February. It found that in a survey of very low-performing schools that made "exemplary progress" in raising test scores, 75 percent used the Open Court reading curriculum. Most of these schools were from the Los Angeles Unified School District, which adopted Open Court in the 2001-02 school year.
EdSource interviewed Los Angeles school officials who noted that their "exemplary progress" schools "were among those that had most fully implemented the elements of the state's recommended direct-instruction approach, in this case through Open Court." The Los Angeles officials also said that teacher training in Open Court has been extensive, with teacher professional development days and teacher coaching devoted to the curriculum.
Norma Baker, principal at Hudnall Elementary in Inglewood, told PRI, "Everything we have here is content-standards driven." The EdSource study quotes a principal who said, "the California standards have provided a blueprint for making major headway."
In the PRI study, all principals had high expectations for their low-income students. Sue Wong, then-principal at Lane elementary in East Los Angeles, said: "You get what you expect. The teachers and classrooms that do well are those that have high expectations." The EdSource study found that a common thread to success "is the schoolwide focus on student achievement and high expectations ..."
Interestingly, the EdSource study found that school district spending and teacher salaries couldn't be correlated with student performance -- an important point given that many education groups demand higher taxes for education spending. Also, the EdSource study found that teacher turnover is a major problem and that the cause can be traced, in significant part, to seniority rights in union contracts that allow teachers to jump to different grade levels or schools.
Another PRI study, "Contract for Failure," which analyzed 460 teacher union contracts in California, also found that union seniority rights prevent the right teacher from being placed in the right classroom at the right time.
The EdSource study confirms PRI's findings: that empirically proven research-based curricula combined with proven research-based teaching methods, and based on the state's rigorous academic standards, can result in high achievement for all students. There is simply no excuse for failure.
(Lance T. Izumi is a senior fellow in California studies and the director of the Center for School Reform at the Pacific Research Institute.)
