You must then read and critique the article that you have selected and type a critique for the article you select according to the formatting guidelines posted here on this blackboard page. Type your name on page one and submit the critique. The critiq

Marijuana Use at School and Achievement-Linked Behaviors

Kristin V. Finn, Ph.D. Canisius College

finnk@canisius.edu

Marijuana remains one of the most frequently used drugs among adolescents and usage has increased in recent years. In addition to general use, many high school students use marijuana during the school day. The present study focused on achievement-linked correlates of in-school marijuana use by comparing non-users, general users, and school users on a set of school behav- iors. The results showed that students who used marijuana in general exhibited poorer behavior on all measures than students who did not use marijuana; even stronger effects were found for school users. Students who used marijuana at school had lower grades, lower classroom partici- pation, worse attendance, more academic dishonesty, and were disciplined more often compared to general marijuana users and nonusers. The relationships between marijuana use and achieve- ment behaviors were similar for males and females, and for Black, White, and Hispanic students. Further research is needed on the motivational structures that underlie school-related drug use.

Marijuana use is on the rise again among adolescents and continues to be the most widely used illicit drug among our nation’s youth. National data from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) study has shown an upward trend in marijuana use since 2008. The most recent survey showed a significant increase in marijuana use for all prevalence periods in grades 8, 10, and 12 (Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2011). According to the report, approxi- mately one-third of high school students have used marijuana in the past year, and one in sixteen grade 12 students reported marijuana use on a daily basis.

Usage among adolescents differs according to demographic subgroups. According to MTF, reports of annual use consistently show greater marijuana use among adolescent males than females (Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman & Schulenberg, 2010). For example, in 2009, 30% of grade 10 males had used marijuana in the past 12 months, compared to 24% of females. By grade 12, these figures increased to 37% and 29%, respectively. These data also highlight dif- ferences among the three largest racial/ethnic groups. In grade 10, Hispanic students reported the highest level of marijuana use (30%), followed by White students (25%) and then Black (22%). While all three groups reported increased use since the previous assessment, the largest increase was among Hispanic students. In 12th grade, White students reported the highest level of marijuana use, followed by Hispanic and Black students. Again, Hispanic students showed a higher rate of increased use compared to the previous assessment than White students. The racial/ethnic group rankings may have differed across the grades because of the higher dropout rate among Hispanic students, resulting in a higher percentage of academi- cally successful Hispanic students in grade 12 than in grade 10.

© 2012 The University of North Carolina Press

Author Note: Kristin V. Finn, Department of Adolescence Education, Canisius College. This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kristin V. Finn, Department of Adolescence Education, Canisius College, 2001 Main St., Buffalo, NY 14208. Email: finnk@canisius.edu

3

Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, and Schulenberg (2010) suggested that one reason for the recent resurgence in marijuana use is that fewer teens report seeing much danger associated with its use or disapprove of its use. For example, in 2010, 31% of grade 10 students indicated that smoking marijuana occasionally was potentially harmful. In contrast, 33% felt that one or two alcoholic drinks every day was potentially harmful, and 41% felt people risked harming themselves by smoking one to five cigarettes a day. Among grade 10 students, 59% disapproved of trying marijuana compared to 81% of students who disapproved of cigarette smoking.

Research to date has focused on general marijuana use, that is, without considering the set- ting or context, although there has been limited research on marijuana use in the workplace (Frone, 2003; 2006) and in school (Finn, 2006). A national study of work-related drug use found that drug use in the workforce (general use) and in the workplace (work use) are con- ceptually distinct, and argued that they may have unique antecedents and consequences (Frone, 2006). The present study focused on achievement-linked correlates of marijuana use by students when they were in school. The specific research questions were: Do students who use marijuana outside of school have poorer achievement-linked school behaviors than students who do not use marijuana? Is marijuana use in school more detrimental to school behavior than general marijuana use? Does the effect of marijuana use on school behavior vary by student gender or race?

Marijuana Use in School Concern with drugs in the school context has been emphasized on a national basis through the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools and the congres- sionally mandated No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which emphasized that drug free school environments are essential for school success. Nevertheless, research shows that the nation’s schools are far from drug-free. Accurate estimates of the prevalence of drug use in schools are difficult to obtain because they vary depending on the prevalence period, age of student, and type of drug. Finn, Willert, and Marable (2003) estimated that between 5 and 25% of adolescents use marijuana during the school day. This is supported by data from the most recent national Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) which found that about 5% of high school students reported using marijuana on school property during the 30 days before the survey (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2010).

Contributing to its use is that fact that marijuana is a highly accessible drug. Since the Monitoring the Future study began in 1975, between 81% and 90% of high school seniors reported that they could easily get marijuana (Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2010). National Youth Risk Behavior data further show that students also have easy access to drugs at school. About 23% of students reported they were offered, sold, or given an illegal drug on school property in the last year (CDC, 2010).

Marijuana use is not perceived as harmful by all students in either the general context or school context. Recent trend data showed that increased marijuana use coincided with decreased perceived risk of harmfulness of marijuana use among the nation’s high school students (Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2011). In the school context, Finn (2006) found that while the majority of high school students perceived marijuana use to be harmful to their school performance, students who reported having used marijuana at school were more likely than nonusers to believe they could do their class work, pay attention to their teacher, and display improved schoolwork if they were using marijuana at school.

Marijuana use at school can impair student engagement in school and may also interfere with teachers’ abilities to have each student attain a needed level of academic proficiency. School-related marijuana use has been assessed in different ways. Marijuana use at school has sometimes been assessed in national surveys as actual use on school property (CDC, 2010; Jeynes, 2002). Other research (Finn, 2006) has defined school-related use more broadly

The High School Journal – Spring 2012

4

to include being under the influence of marijuana at school. This definition included use on school property such as in the bathrooms or in the school yard, as well as use at home before coming to school, while walking to school, or on the school bus. It has been noted that drug use at school may be accompanied by different dynamics than general use (Finn, 2006): drugs may be harder to use in school without detection compared to out-of-school settings; peers may have less influence on an individual within the constraints of the school setting; and drug use in school may represent a blatant defiance of the authority structure represented by school.

Educational Correlates of Marijuana Use The educational correlates of general marijuana use have been well documented. Decades of research have shown that substance use is associated with students’ school beliefs and academic motivation including negative perceptions of academic competence and lower levels of school bonding, expectations, and interest in school (Bryant & Zimmerman, 2002; Dryfoos, 1990, Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992; Voelkl & Frone, 2000). Further, marijuana use among adolescents is related to lower grades in school, greater school absenteeism, more frequent school suspension, and higher rates of school dropout (Bryant, Schulenberg, O’Malley, Bachman, & Johnston, 2003; Cox, Zhang, Johnson, & Bender, 2007; Fergusson, Horwood, & Beautrais, 2003; Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992; Henry, 2010; Lynskey & Hall, 2000; Register, Williams, & Grimes, 2001). In one large-scale study, current marijuana users were found to be twice as likely to have low grades in school as non-users after adjusting for other factors associated with performance (Cox, Zhang, Johnson, & Bender, 2007). In an exten- sive longitudinal study in New Zealand, students who left school prior to obtaining a school certificate reported twice the rate of marijuana use compared to those not leaving school (Fergusson, Horwood, & Beautrais, 2003).

The direction of the relationship between marijuana use and school behaviors is unclear. Some research has found that marijuana use results in subsequent academic problems (Fergusson, Horwood, & Beautrais, 2003); but in Hawkins, Catalano, and Miller’s (1992) review of research, many of these same academic problems were portrayed as risk factors for drug use. In either case, the research consistently demonstrates an inverse relationship between general marijuana use and school success.

The present study examined the educational correlates of marijuana use but distinguished between general use and in-school use by comparing students who were non-users, general users, and school users of marijuana on school outcomes. The five educational correlates studied are indicators of student engagement (grades, class participation, attendance) or disengagement (cheating, discipline problems); all five have been found to be linked to student achievement (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Jimerson, Campos, & Greif, 2003; Voelkl & Frone, 2004).

Method

Participants and Procedure Participants were 1,161 adolescents who participated in an investigation of substance use and academic behaviors among high school students. 1,112 had complete data on all variables. Eleven public high schools (6 urban, 5 suburban) were selected as a cross-section of high schools in western New York State. Within each school, students from grades 9 through 12 were selected to participate in the study by having schools randomly select classes that repre- sented a cross-section of the student body by race, gender, and grade level. In spring of the school year, participants completed an anonymous questionnaire during particular classroom periods or study halls that solicited detailed information about alcohol and marijuana use in school settings.

The participants were evenly distributed across grades 9 through 12. Half (49%) attended urban schools, 48% were male, 68% were White, 25% were Black, and 7% were Hispanic. Fifty-five percent of the students lived with both biological parents, 12% with a parent and

Marijuana Use at School

5

stepparent, 27% in single-parent households, and 6% lived in other family arrangements. About half (53%) were employed at least part-time during the school year.

Measures

Marijuana use. General (non-school) marijuana use was measured by asking students how often they had used marijuana during the past six months using a 5-point scale that ranged from “never” to “3 or more days a week.” Marijuana use during the school day was assessed with three items taken from a school substance use scale developed for a survey of school attitudes and behaviors among adolescents (Voelkl & Frone, 2000). Each item used a 4-point scale that ranged from “never” to “once or more a week.” The three items measured the fre- quency of school-related marijuana use during the past six months (e.g., how often students used marijuana before coming to school, used marijuana during the school day, and attended school while high). A composite variable was created to classify students by type of marijuana use. Students who indicated they neither used marijuana away from school or at school were classified as non-users (n 5 764). Students who reported they used marijuana but not during or before school where classified as general users (n 5 203). Students who reported they used marijuana generally as well as before or during school were classified as school users (n 5 191). Three students reported only using marijuana before or during the school day and were included in the school users group.

Achievement-linked behavior. Five indicators of achievement-linked behavior were obtained from student reports: (1) Academic achievement was measured as self-reported grades during their last marking period. The seven-point scale ranged from “mostly D’s and F’s” to “mostly A’s.” (2) Classroom participation was assessed with 6 items taken from the Student Partici- pation Questionnaire (Finn, Folger, & Cox, 1991), a measure of behavioral engagement. The measure was designed originally for use with fourth grade students but has been subsequently used with older students. It has been used widely in research on student behavior and in large-scale surveys and been shown to have good internal reliability and validity. The six items asked students to report how often they engaged in the following classroom behaviors during the past 6 months in their English classes: pay attention in class, participate in class discussions, bring materials to class, submit assignments on time, persist on difficult tasks, discuss material with teacher outside of class, do just enough work to get by (reversed), and come to class on time. Response options were on a 5-point scale and ranged from “never” to “always.” The average of the six items formed the composite participation measure and had good internal reliability (alpha 5 0.75). (3) Punishment was measured as the frequency of receiving detention or being suspended during the current school year. Response options included “never,” “1–2 times,” “3–6 times,” and “7 or more times.” The two punishment items were summed into a total score. (4) Nonattendance was assessed as the number of times during the school year the student was late to class without an excuse, skipped a class, and/or skipped school; higher values indicated worse attendance. The same response options were used as in the punishment measure. A composite measure of attendance represented an average of the 3 items and had a reliability coefficient of 0.69. (5) Cheating was assessed with six items that measured the frequency (“never,” “once,” “more than once”) students reported they cheated on tests, submitted work that was not their own, and plagiarized material during the school year. The average of the six items formed the composite cheating measure with a reliability coefficient of 0.81.

Analysis The data were analyzed using a three-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) model for unequal cell ns. Marijuana group, gender, and race were the factors of classification and the five indicators of school behavior were used as the dependent measures. Specific con- trasts were used to answer the first two research questions. The first question concerning the effect of general use on school measures, was answered by comparing the means for general

The High School Journal – Spring 2012

6

users to nonusers (G – N). The second question, concerning the hypothesized larger effect of school use, was answered by comparing the means for school users to general user (S – G); that is, the effect of school use would be deemed larger if S – N is greater than G – N, which is equivalent to comparing S with G. Each contrast was tested using a multivariate test to com- pare groups on all five variables (Hotelling’s T2 and a corresponding multivariate F-statistic) followed by univariate t-tests for each variable. Finally, the interactions addressed the third research question, whether the relationship of marijuana use with school behaviors varied as a function of student gender or race.

Because there may be systematic between-school differences in marijuana use, the analyses were conducted with and without controlling for schools. For example, research has shown that drug availability and opportunity in the school climate are related to frequency of drug use (Voelkl & Frone, 2000; Finn, Willert, & Marable, 2003). The pattern of results in the present study was the same for both analyses and thus the uncontrolled results are presented here. Due to the large sample size and large number of statistical tests, a type I error rate of .01 was used throughout the study.

Results Overall, 34% of the 1,161 participants indicated they had used marijuana generally and 17% indicated they used marijuana at school in the six months preceding the study. This is con- sistent with prevalence data found in other large-scale reports (CDC, 2010; Jeynes, 2002; Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2011). Among those students who used mari- juana generally, 191 out of 394 (49%) students also used it at school (Table 1). Out of the 194 students who used marijuana at school, only three (1%) did not use marijuana gener- ally. These results suggest that general marijuana use precedes school use, and that students are unlikely to use marijuana at school without already having experience with it outside of school.

The percentage of students in each marijuana group and the means of the five measures are given in Tables 2 and 3. The distributions of marijuana use by males and females and by the three racial/ethnic groups appeared similar (Table 2). This was supported by nonsignificant chi-square tests of association [for gender, c2(2) 5 7.0, p < .04; for race/ethnicity, c2(4) 5 10.4, p < .04]. The near-significance of these tests was attributable mostly to the difference

Table 1: Number of Marijuana Users

General marijuana use

School marijuana use

TotalNo Yes

No 764 3 767

Yes 203 191 394

Total 967 194 1161

Table 2: Percent and Number of Students in Marijuana Use Groups by Gender and Race

Gender Race

Male Female White Black Hispanic

Marijuana use group

Nonuser 63.8% 356 67.6% 407 66.4% 510 67.0% 193 61.5% 48

General 16.5% 92 18.4% 111 16.5% 127 21.2% 61 14.1% 11

School 19.7% 110 14.0% 84 17.1% 131 11.8% 34 24.4% 19

Note. Column totals sum to 100%.

Marijuana Use at School

7

in school usage between males and females (19.7% compared to 14.0%) and between White and Black students (17.1% compared to 11.8%).

The means for user groups (Table 3) were consistent across the five achievement-linked behaviors: The performance of nonuser students was superior to that of general users which, in turn, was superior to that of school users. Females showed superior performance to males on all measures; the results for racial/ethnic groups were mixed. These differences were examined more formally in the MANOVA. Correlations among the five behavior variables were all in the expected direction and ranged from 0.11 to 0.41; all were statistically significant.

The results of the MANOVA tests are summarized in Table 4, with effect sizes in Table 5. The multivariate test for gender differences was statistically significant, F(5,1090) 5 18.7, p < .001, as were the separate F-ratios for grades, participation, and punishment. On average, females reported better performance on each of these variables than did males, with effect sizes of 0.29s to 0.49s (Table 5). The effect sizes for attendance and cheating were also in the expected direction but not statistically significant.

The overall multivariate test of racial/ethnic differences was also significant, F(10, 2180) 5 12.8, p < .001. The differences were specific to particular variables and groups, however. On average, White students had better outcomes than did Black students on grades, punish- ments and attendance; effect sizes were moderate, ranging from 0.36s to 0.60s. The Black— White differences in classroom participation and cheating were small and not statistically significant. The difference between non-Hispanic White students and Hispanic students was not significant on any variable at the .01 level, although all differences favored White students to some degree. Of all the measures, there were very small racial/ethnic differences in self- reported classroom participation in general, although the variable had significant gender (and marijuana group) differences. It would have been informative to have teacher ratings of students’ participation to compare with the student ratings.

Marijuana Use Groups The multivariate test of differences among the three marijuana groups was statistically sig- nificant, F(10,2180) 5 46.0, p < .001. The first research question concerned the difference

Table 3: Means for All Main Effects

Grades Participation Punishment Nonattendance Cheating

Marijuana use group

Nonuser 5.26 3.79 2.70 1.53 1.51

General 4.61 3.58 3.24 2.01 1.77

School 4.03 3.28 4.36 2.58 1.95

Gender

Male 4.66 3.57 3.38 1.84 1.67

Female 5.24 3.77 2.77 1.73 1.59

Race

White 5.17 3.67 2.89 1.72 1.66

Black 4.46 3.70 3.48 1.92 1.57

Hispanic 4.74 3.61 3.23 1.95 1.56

Pooled standard deviation

1.58 0.60 1.21 0.68 0.52

Range of values 1–7 1–5 1–8 1–4 1–3

The High School Journal – Spring 2012

8

between general users of marijuana and nonusers. The multivariate test of this contrast (on all five variables) was highly significant, T 2 5 97.2, F(5,1090) 519.4, p < .001.

Effect sizes for individual variables (Table 5) were moderate to large, ranging from 0.36s (grades and classroom participation) to 0.70s (nonattendance). All variables showed superior behavior of nonusers. The variable with the greatest difference, nonattendance, was a com- posite of three questions, the number of times the student was late to school, skipped a class, or skipped school. Frequency distributions of these items were compared to see if one or two behaviors dominated the difference between nonusers and general users. All three individual questions showed large differences between the groups, no matter how viewed. For example,

Table 4: Summary of MANOVA Tests of Significance

Multivariate F-statistic (df)

Univariate F-ratios

Grades Participation Punishment Nonattendance Cheating

Gender 18.7*** (5, 1090)

37.3*** 28.7*** 72.1*** 6.4* 7.8**

Race 12.8*** (10, 2180)

25.3*** 0.6 31.6*** 12.5*** 2.9

Group 46.0*** (10, 2180)

46.5*** 50.5*** 133.6*** 184.0*** 57.3***

Gender x Race

0.8 (10, 2180)

0.0 1.7 0.2 1.9 0.0

Race x Group

1.7* (20, 3616)

0.3 0.6 1.6 2.9* 4.9***

Gender x Group

2.3* (10, 2180)

3.9* 0.5 1.8 3.0* 0.9

Gender x Race x Group

1.32 (20, 3616)

2.3 1.1 1.9 1.9 0.5

Note. Unequal-N analysis of variance. Each effect tested eliminating effects listed above it in the table. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 5: Effect Sizes for Specific Contrasts

Grades Participation Punishment Nonattendance Cheating

Effect

Gender

Male – Female −0.37*** −0.29*** 0.49*** 0.11 0.12* Race/ethnicity

White – Black 0.51*** 0.01 −0.60*** −0.36*** 0.13 White – Hispanic 0.24* 0.06 −0.22 −.025* 0.23

Marijuana use group

None – General 0.36*** 0.36*** −0.43*** −0.70*** −0.49*** School – General −0.41*** −0.46*** 0.92*** 0.85*** 0.34**

Note. Effect sizes are expressed in standard deviation units. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Marijuana Use at School

9

the percentage of nonusers who came late to school 3 or more times was 20.9% and the percentage of general users was 45.8%. The percentages skipping class 3 or more times were 10.8% and 27.1%, respectively. The percentages skipping school 3 or more times were 7.7% and 14.8%.

The second research question concerned the possible additional effect of marijuana use in school. The multivariate test of the contrast between school use and general use was also highly significant, T 2 5 109.2, F(5,1090) 5 21.8, p < .001. Indeed, school use was asso- ciated with different average levels of school behavior. Effect sizes (Table 5) all showed worse behavior for school users, ranging from moderate to quite large (0.34s to 0.92s). The greatest difference was found in punishment; this may be no surprise given that these students used illicit drugs in school. Whether or not their school behavior is generally worse or whether the punishment is for drug use in particular is not shown by these data, but there is a suggestion in the data that their behavior is generally worse. School users also had poorer attendance than did general users. The frequency distributions of indi- vidual attendance questions revealed an enormous difference in rates of skipping school. Almost forty-five percent (44.8%) of school users reported skipping school three or more times during the past year, compared to 14.8% of general users. Similarly, about 52% of school users skipped a class three or more times during the past year, compared to 27% of general users.

The third research question concerned the constancy of these relationships across gender and race groups. The multivariate test of the race-x-marijuana group interaction was nonsignificant at the .01 level, F(20,3616) 5 1.72, p > .01, as was the test of the gender-x-marijuana group interaction, F(10,2180) 5 2.30, p > .01. Further, the three-way gender-x-race-x-group interac- tions was nonsignificant, F(20,3616) 5 1.32, p > .01. In general, the relationship of marijuana use with achievement behaviors was similar in both gender groups and in all three racial/ ethnic groups.

The near-significance of the multivariate tests, coupled with one or more near-significant or significant univariate tests for the gender x group and race x group interactions (Table 4) lead to an examination of the means. The means for males and females on achievement and nonattendance were ordered the same way, with best performance for nonusers and worst performance for school users. This demonstrates the main effect for both males and females. The size of the differences among marijuana groups varied somewhat between males and females, but in no systematic way. Likewise, the means for White, Black, and Hispanic students on attendance were also best for nonusers and worst for school users. Only the means for racial/ethnic groups on cheating showed an oddity. The mean cheating score of general-use Hispanic students was below that of Hispanic nonusers and well below that of Hispanic school users. This value, obtained from 11 respondents, was based on a truncated distribution of scores; it did not span the entire range of the variable as it did for the other groups. With this specific exception, which may be spurious, the user group main effect was substantiated for all three racial/ethnic classifications.

Discussion Marijuana use is again on the rise among our nation’s youth. Research has consistently shown a positive relationship between substance use and academic attitudes and behaviors. But most of this research has focused on “general” use, while only a small amount of research has examined the problem of substance use in the school context. According to national esti- mates, at least 5% of students reported that they used marijuana during school hours (CDC, 2010). According to the National Center for Education Statistics, approximately 16.4 million students were enrolled in high school in 2007–08 (Aud et al., 2010). From this, it is esti- mated that at least 800,000 students attended school under the influence of marijuana during the school year. Despite the obvious association between marijuana use and educational

The High School Journal – Spring 2012

10

outcomes, virtually no studies have examined how marijuana use at school is related to academic behaviors. This study provided new and needed evidence on this relationship.

In this study, about one-third of high school students reported they had used marijuana gen- erally and 17% indicated they used marijuana at school in the months preceding the study. Among those students who used marijuana generally, nearly half also used it at school; of those who used it at school, nearly everyone had also used it outside of school. Consistent with the gateway theory (Kandel, Yamaguchi & Chen, 1992), this pattern suggests that general marijuana use can lead to school use.

Comparisons between students who did not use marijuana, used it generally, and used it in school showed clear significant differences: students who used marijuana in general exhibited poorer behavior on all measures than did students who did not use marijuana. School use was associated with even stronger effects than was general use. Students who used marijuana at school had lower grades, lower classroom participation, worse attendance, more academic dishonesty, and were disciplined more often than were general marijuana users. Overall, the relationship between marijuana use and achievement behaviors was similar for both gender groups, and for Black, White, and Hispanic students.

More research is needed to understand the motivational factors that lead to general and school use. In this study, nearly all students who used marijuana at school also used marijuana out- side of school, suggesting common motivational factors for the two types of use. This would be consistent with problem behavior theory that posits that individuals who exhibit one mis- behavior are likely to exhibit others or multiple forms of the same misbehavior (Dryfoos, 1990; Jessor & Jessor, 1977). It is also consistent with social control theory that proposes that bonding with normative social institutions, for example, school, can protect individuals against dysfunctional behavior in many settings (Hirschi, 2005). From this perspective, ado- lescents who like school, feel school rules are fair, value teacher expectations, and have a sense of school bonding would be less likely to engage in substance use (Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992; Jenkins, 1995; Krohn & Massey, 1980; Resnick, Harris, & Shew 1997). Simi- larly, students who are not engaged in the classroom tend to skip school, not complete assignments, associate with delinquent peers, and engage in other forms of misbehavior including delinquent acts and drug use.

In contrast, only 48% of general marijuana users were also school users, suggesting that students who also engage in school use may have additional motivating and risk factors. The decision to use marijuana in a school setting may reflect a rebellious attitude toward school demonstrated by the choice to deliberately break school rules and defy school authority. This decision may also reflect a lack of identification or attachment to school. Drug use at school may be more likely when students feel unsupported by their teachers, bored or unchallenged by schoolwork, and/or regard school rules as meaningless or unfair.

More research is needed to understand the motivational structures that underlie the use of mari- juana or other illicit substances during the school day. A student’s school environment may con- tribute to substance use. For example, schools that have low levels of supervision, and weak or unclear disciplinary actions are likely to have greater substance use problems. Further, mari- juana use is more likely when drugs are both physically and socially available in the school set- ting. Finally, drug use at school may be a reaction to stress placed on students through workload, pressure to perform on high-stakes tests, and interpersonal relations with peers and faculty.

As with all research, there were limitations to this investigation. Since the study was non- experimental, the direction of causal connections could not be established. Impairment due to marijuana use may interfere with school performance, resulting in poor grades and nonparticipation in the classroom. On the other hand, low grades and disengagement from school may lead to a decision to use drugs as a form of expressing frustration or anger.

Marijuana Use at School

11

In addition, the data from this investigation were based on students’ self-reports, which have potential sources of bias including the desire to make a favorable impression (Paulhus, 1991). This may have led some students to under- or over-report their level of marijuana use or school behaviors. However, the prevalence data reported in this study were consistent with data found in national studies such as the Youth Risk Behavior Survey and Monitoring the Future which also assessed students’ drug use with self-report measures (CDC, 2010; Jeynes, 2002; Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2011). Also, much of the self-reported information collected in this study was factual, such as grades, attendance, and discipline. Research has shown that, overall, there is a reasonably high correlation between self-reported and actual grades (Fetters, Stowe, & Owings, 1984). Despite potential biases, self-report mea- sures are widely used and may be the most appropriate source of information for personal and factual issues such as drug use.

This work extended the current field of adolescent substance use research by focusing on marijuana use in a specific context. The results showed clearly that the educational corre- lates of marijuana use are significant and more pronounced for students who use marijuana during the school day. While many students are willing to use marijuana, fewer are willing to use it at school. Further research is needed to identify the risk factors and motivators for drug use in different contexts. This information is needed to better identify those students at greatest risk for educational failure.

While school-related drug use was shown to be harmful to drug users, it may be useful to study the impact of school-related drug use on students who do not use drugs. Does exposure to students who are impaired at school have a negative impact on other students’ morale, ability to concentrate, and performance? The results of this study will help both researchers and educators better understand the complexity of adolescent substance use, and may be impor- tant for developing policies and practices that help reach the goal of making all schools safe and drug free.

References Aud, S., Hussar, W., Planty, M., Snyder, T., Bianco, K., Fox, M., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., & Drake, L. (2010). The Con-

dition of education 2010 (NCES 2010-028). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

Bryant, A. L., Schulenberg, J. E., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D. (2003). How academic achievement, attitudes, and behaviors relate to the course of substance use during adolescence: A 6-year, multiwave national longitudinal study. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 361–397.

Bryant, A. L., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2002). Examining the effects of academic beliefs and behaviors on changes in substance use among urban adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 621–637.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance – United States 2009. Surveil- lance summaries, June 4 2010. MMWR 2010; 59 (No. SS-5).

Cox, R. G., Zhang, L., Johnson, W. D., & Bender, D. R. (2007). Academic performance and substance use: From a state survey of public high school students. Journal of School Health, 77, 109–115.

Dryfoos, J. G. (1990). Adolescents at risk: Prevalence and prevention. New York: Oxford University Press. Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Beautrais, A. L. (2003). Cannabis and educational achievement. Addiction, 98,

1681–1692. Fetters, W., Stowe, O., & Owings, J. (1984). High school and beyond. A national longitudinal study for the 1980s

quality of responses of high school students to questionnaire items (NCES 84-216). Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- ment of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics.

Finn, J. D., Folger, J., & Cox, D. (1991). Measuring participation among elementary grade students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 393–402.

Finn, K. V. (2006). Patterns of alcohol and marijuana use at school. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 69–77. Finn, K. V., Willert, H. J., & Marable, M. A. (2003). Substance use in schools. Educational Leadership, 60, 80–84. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the

evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109. Frone, M. R. (2003). Predictors of overall and on-the-job substance use among young workers. Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, 8, 39–54. Frone, M. R. (2006). Prevalence and distribution of illicit drug use in the workforce and in the workplace: Findings

and implications from a U.S. national survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 856–869. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in

adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64–105.

The High School Journal – Spring 2012

12

Henry, K. L. (2010). Academic achievement and adolescent drug use: An examination of reciprocal effects and corre- lated growth trajectories. Journal of School Health, 80, 38–43.

Hirschi, T. (2005). Causes of delinquency. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Jenkins, P. H. (1995). School delinquency and school commitment. Sociology of Education, 68, 221–239. Jessor, R., & Jessor, S. L. (1977). Problem behavior and psychosocial development: A longitudinal study of youth.

New York: Academic Press. Jeynes, W. H. (2002). The relationship between the consumption of various drugs by adolescents and their academic

achievement. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 28, 15–35. Jimerson, S. R., Campos, E., & Greif, J. L. (2003). Toward an understanding of definitions and measures of school

engagement and related terms. California School Psychologist, 8, 7–27. Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2010). Monitoring the Future national survey

results on drug use, 1975–2009: Volume I, Secondary school students (NIH Publication No. 10-7584). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2011). Monitoring the future national results on adolescence drug use: Overview of key findings, 2010. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan.

Kandel, D., Yamaguchi, K., & Chen, K. (1992). Stages of progression in drug involvement from adolescence to adulthood: Further evidence for the gateway theory. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 53, 447–457.

Krohn, M., & Massey, J. (1980). Social control and delinquent behavior: An examination of the elements of the social bond. Sociological Quarterly, 21, 529–543.

Lynskey, M. T., & Hall, W. (2000). The effects of adolescent cannabis use on educational achievement: A review. Addictions, 95, 1621–1630.

Mickelson, R. A. (1990). The attitude-achievement paradox among black adolescents. Sociology of Education, 63, 44–61. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Measures of personality

and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). San Diego, CA: Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich. Register, C. A., Williams, D. R., & Grimes, P. W. (2001). Adolescent drug use and educational attainment. Education

Economics, 9(1), 1–18. Resnick, M. D., Harris, K. M., & Shew, M. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longi-

tudinal Study on Adolescent Health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 823–832. Voelkl, K. E., & Frone, M. R. (2000). Predictors of substance use at school among high school students. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 92, 583–592. Voelkl, K., & Frone, M. R. (2004). Academic performance and cheating: Moderating role of school identification and

self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 115–122.

Marijuana Use at School

13

Copyright of High School Journal is the property of University of North Carolina Press and its content may not

be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.