J. DRUG EDUCATION, Vol. 20(1) 47-65,1990

TEACHER DRUG USE: A RESPONSE TO OCCUPATIONAL STRESS*

W. DAVID WATTS College of Arts and Sciences Southeastern Louisiana University

ALVIN P. SHORT Department of Sociology/An thropology South west Texas State University

ABSTRACT

Work-related stress is predicted to be correlated with wanting to leave the teaching profession and drug use. A stratified random sample of 500 Texas teachers was surveyed (565% responded), regarding working conditions, collegial and supervisory relationships, job satisfaction, rigidity of attitudes and drug use. Two-thirds of teachers may want t o quit the profession, while 36.4 percent are likely to quit. Teachers report higher rates than a national sample of lifetime alcohol, amphetamine, and tranquilizer use and higher rates of alcohol use in the last year and last month. Selected measures of stress are correlated with drug use, particularly amphetamine use, over the lifetime, last year, and last month.

One factor contributing to drug use by adults is thought to be stress [ 11. Recognizing that stress is a global concept that potentially derives from both personal and environmental sources, occupational stress, in particular, has been identified with a number of maladaptive behaviors [2]. The purpose of this article is to examine the relationship between occupational stress and drug use with particular attention to the teaching profession.

* An earlier draft of this article was presented to the Southwestern Sociological Association. 47 0 1990. Bavwood Publishing Co., h e .

doi: 10.2190/XWW0-7FBH-FXVB-2K3C http://baywood.com

48 I W. D. WATTS AND A. P. SHORT

There are a number of reasons for focusing on the teaching profession. First, teachers, along with parents, are front line fighters in the national effort to prevent alcohol and drug abuse among children. If teachers or parents have drug or alcohol abuse problems of their own, this clouds the no use message that is being emphasized in classrooms. Second, as family structure and function continues to shift and as a larger proportion of children are being reared in single parent homes, greater responsibility for socialization is being assumed by schools. Teachers with drug or alcohol abuse problems, like their parental counterparts, will be less able to effectively carry out these responsibilities. Third, the teaching profession, like many others, is experiencing change. Many of today's teachers are yesterday's college students, a generation that experimented with the use of drugs. Have these recreational and adaptive habits carried over to the professional period of their lives? Fourth, if teachers do have substance abuse problems, information about the nature of these problems is needed to plan effectively for a variety of intervention programs for teachers.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE A great deal of work has been done on the effects of stress on various occupational groups. Freudenberger proposed the concept of burnout to explain why human service workers lose their effectiveness over time and chose to exit the profession [3] . Freudenberger described anger, paranoia, risk-taking, drug use, rigidity, cynicism, and depression as indicators of burnout. Maslach, Cherniss, and Kaplan have expanded the concept and its applications to other occupations in addition to human service professions [4-61. French and colleagues have developed a theory of job stress that examines indicators of strain, including a range of health consequences for various occupations [2,7]. The core elements of the French and Caplan model are stress, individual characteristics of flexibility, social support, strain, and the consequences of strain [8].Stress factors in the workplace include role ambiguity, conflict, and work overload. Depending on personal characteristics, such as flexibility or rigidity, and social support, individuals will react with varying degrees of strain. Job dissatisfaction, low self-actualization, job tension, elevated heart rate and other physiological and attitudinal symptoms are indicators of strain. The known consequences of stress include job burnout and health problems, such as higher accident and morbidity rates, heart disease, and smoking. One recent source of stress for teachers is that teaching, as a profession, is undergoing critical examination by the public, government agencies, and public interest groups. Various private and public commission reports have called for the reform of public education [9, lo]. Many states have adopted legislation to improve the quality of education and teachers in the public schools. Some states have required teachers to take tests of basic literacy and competency in their areas of expertise. Significant advancement for teachers often depends on the individual's progress on a career ladder. Competitive peer and supervisor

TEACHERDRUGUSE I 49

evaluations, in addition to continuing education in teaching specialties, are necessary for advancement. All of these changes have added new sources of stress for teachers. In addition to these new pressures, teachers face continuing problems in the classroom. The daily struggle to maintain order to produce an effective learning environment, the socioeconomic and ethnic diversity of classrooms, communication with parents, and the problems of teaching in an organizational setting are some of the continuing sources of pressure and stress that teachers confront [ 1 1, 121 . Teachers have reacted to stress in a number of ways, including organized political opposition, leaving the profession, and unionization [13,14]. The literature on teaching and stress is extensive [ l l , 12, 14-22]. Dworkin has concentrated on the structural antecedents of burnout in an urban school district and the consequences for the educational process [13,23]. Humphrey and others, while examining stress sources, have proposed adaptive strategies for teachers coping with stress [ 1 1,12, 16,20,24] . Some of the consequences of stress for teachers include absenteeism, illness, job dissatisfaction, and intention to leave the profession [ l l , 13, 14,20,21]. While some writers have suggested that increased alcohol and drug consumption by teachers is a result of stress, little systematic data have been collected on teachers’ drug and alcohol use and possible relation to occupational stress [ 15, 161 . Based on interviews with a national sample of adults, Chambers et al. suggest that the greatest drug problem involves people who respond to stress, boredom, frustration and loneliness with drugs, including legal drugs [ 1 1 . While Caplan and associates have examined illness and smoking as a consequence of strain, Conway et al. found that smoking and coffee consumption, but not alcohol, varied in relationship to perceived occupational stress [25,26]. Fimian et al. reported relationships between frequency and strength of stress and perceived need and use of over the counter drugs, prescription drugs, and alcohol by teachers [27]. Fimian calls for the use of additional organizational variables such as role conflict, ambiguity, and job satisfaction as independent variables effecting drug use [27]. Given the extraordinary stress being placed upon teachers, the availability of drugs in society and the role of teachers in drug abuse prevention, the present study was initiated. One factor that may be unrelated to structural sources of stress for teachers, yet contributing to the rate of drug use by teachers, is generational in nature. Almost without exception, teachers today are college graduates, many of whom attended universities and colleges in the decades when drug use was more widely tolerated. Teachers with less than twenty years experience may have assimilated more relaxed normative standards toward drug use and may express those norms in their behavior. New teachers, because of their inexperience, are under additional stress. This inexperience may be compounded by their youth. Having to prove one’s professional competence, while additional demands are placed on teachers as a

50 I W. D. WATTS AND A. P. SHORT

profession, yet not fully incorporated into the informal pattern of support and friendship that teachers of long experience and association have come to &are, makes being a young, new teacher particularly stressful. Besides generational norms and inexperience, perceived occupational stress may contribute to drug use among teachers. The literature (see [15] for summary) identifies a number of areas of concern, but featured among them are the degree of professional autonomy and control relative to students, parents and administration, working relationships with colleagues and superiors and the perception of being able to meet accountability and time demands. Job satisfaction, although closely related to stress, is also a factor that can effect teachers’ likelihood of drug use. The amount of social support teachers receive from colleagues and teacher organizations is thought to effect stress and its consequences, although Dworkin finds that only support from principals, not fellow teachers, mitigates the effects of stress [13, 16, 19,28,29]. Based on the preceding review of the literature, the following hypotheses were developed to test the relationships between stress, job satisfaction, professional cohesion, age, teaching experience and drug use by teachers: 1. There is an inverse relationship between age and drug use. 2. There is an inverse relationship between years of teaching and drug use. 3. Perceived stress is positively correlated with selected drug use. 4. Job dissatisfaction is positively correlated with selected drug use. 5. Lower scores on personality rigidity are correlated with higher rates of drug use. 6. Lower scores of professional and social cohesion are correlated with higher rates of drug use.

METHODS Sample To test these hypotheses, a sample of teachers was selected from Texas. There is no national register for teachers, since they are certified to teach by state. Texas was chosen for two reasons: the large number of teachers in the state and Texas educational reforms which contributed to additional professional demands being placed on teachers. In the 1985-1986 academic year, there were 173,069 teachers who were listed on the rolls of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) by their districts. Forty percent of the teachers were assigned to elementary education, while 43 percent were in secondary. Home-based, vocational and special education teachers accounted for approximately 15 percent. A stratified random sample of 500 teachers was drawn from the list 1985 maintained by TEA. The list for 19861987 was not available at the time that the sample was drawn. The sample was drawn equally from elementary and secondary teachers; also it was

TEACHERDRUGUSE I 51

divided equally between rural and urban districts with urban defined as a metropolitan area.

Questionnaire The questionnaire consisted of over eighty items organized into four parts. The fust section of the questionnaire gathered data on the teachers’ characteristics, the district size, ethnic make-up, and the nature of the workload. A series of nine questions were developed, based on the literature, which measured job-related stress factors, including workload, peer and administrative conflict, classroom and curricula control and administrative support [30] . The teachers were asked if they were satisfied with their present position, if they would like to quit and whether they were able to do so. The respondents were asked how many professional and community organizations were they members of and whether they held office. The second section of the instrument included a rigidity of attitudes scale regarding personal habits developed by Meresko and his colleagues [31]. This twenty-item scale can be self-administered and correlates well with the F scale. The third section of the questionnaire used Brayfield and Rothe’s general measure of job satisfaction [32]. Nine questions measured perceived job-related stress, following French and Caplan [2]. Role overload was measured by self-reports of the number of hours worked, which ranged from two to ninety, and a question which assessed the respondents’ perceptions of whether they had too much to do. Role conflict was measured with two items which asked teachers to indicate on a four-point Likert scale whether they had a great deal of conflict or were their relations with administrators and fellow teachers conflict free. Given the importance of professional autonomy in recent recommendations on public education, three questions probed the extent of control teachers had on daily operation, curriculum, and discipline in the classroom. The last two measures of perceived stress rated respondents’ assessment of administrative support and the extent to which paper work was reduced or increased. The final portion of the questionaire probed drug usage. Adopted from the Monitoring the Future projects, this section measured the prevalence and frequency of use of eleven different classes of drugs including alcohol [33,34]. Previous research reported only “over the counter drugs,” alcohol use and a generic category of illegal drugs [27]. Using the Monitoring the Future instrument yields a number of benefits, including measurement of prevalence and frequency data of use over the lifetime, past year and past month. Adoption of a standardized measure of drug use also facilitates comparison across age and occupational groups, including high school students. The length of the questionnaire required that questions on five drugs (LSD, psychedelics, quaaludes, heroin and other narcotics) be deleted from the past year and past month measures. Given the low rates of lifetime use of these drugs in this ample, no significant loss of data occurred.

52 / W. D. WATTS AND A. P. SHORT

The self-administered instrument was mailed to the school district address of the 500 randomly selected respondents. The mailing included a cover letter, which assured anonymity, encouraged completion, and indicated the voluntary nature of the activity. A stamped, self-addressed envelope was also enclosed. While anonymity was guaranteed, code numbers were assigned to each case in order to follow-up the initial mailing. After three weeks, 199 questionnaires had been returned. A second mailing produced an additional seventy-eight responses. Ten questionnaires were returned by the school districts, since those teachers were no longer employed. The net return rate for the survey was 56.5 percent.

FINDINGS The responding teachers averaged 12.06 years of teaching and with a mean age of 38.8 years. Of those reporting district size, 47 percent taught in districts with less than 5000 students. Thirty seven percent (n = 93) of the teachers worked in districts that are between 5000 and 50,000 students, while 15 percent (n = 39) taught in districts of 100,000or more. Forty percent of the respondents taught in pre-elementary or elementary school, with 55 percent in secondary schools. A few of the respondents reported teaching in all levels of education. Over 80 percent of the respondents were white, with 5.8 percent (n = 16) black, and 12 percent Hispanic. Over 75 percent of the sample were female. Since the measures of perceived stress were designed specifically for this study, they were factor analyzed to confirm that they probed the intended domain [35]. The nine variables were entered into a principal components factor analysis using varimax rotation. The minimum eigenvalue for inclusion in the rotated factor matrix was 1 .O. Convergence was reached in five iterations, using Kaiser normalization. Four variables loaded on the fust factor, accounting Table 1. Perceived Stress Scale Factor Loading and Reliability Coefficients

Variables

Classroom Discipline Operational Control Curriculum Control Administrative Support Collegial Relations Administrative Relations Job Demands Paper Work Hours Alpha Coefficients

Scale One Professional Autonomy

Scale Two Working Relationships

Scale Three Overload

.7 8 .70

.69 .66 .85 .82 .70

.68

Deleting hours changed the alpha t o .26 for Scale Three.

.63

.63 .60 .03*

TEACHERDRUGUSE I 53

for 25.3 percent of the variance (as shown in Table 1). Since control over curriculum, discipline, and operation in addition to administrative support loaded together, this factor was labeld “professional autonomy.” The amount of conflict with fellow teachers and the degree of support from administrators loaded together to form the second factor called “workingrelationships.” The third factor consisted of three variables, job demands, paperwork, and total hours identified as “overload.” The three factors together accounted for 54.6 percent of the variance. Although considerably fewer items were used in the factor construction, these stress factors closely resemble those found by Friesen and Williams [36]. A reliability alpha coefficient of .68 was produced for professional autonomy. The working relationships factor scale, produced an alpha of .63. The third scale, overload, is problematic, since the alpha is .03. Deletion of the hours worked variable increases it only to .26. Given the small number of items in each scale, and the tendency foi alpha to be diminished, all three scales were included in further analysis [37]. The Brayfield scale was used to measure job satisfaction (alpha = .89). In addition, a single question asking how satisfied the respondents were with their present teaching position was used. The single-item question could be used to differentiate between present position and the continued participation in the teaching profession. Meresko’s rigidity of attitudes regarding personal habits ( W H )scale produced an alpha of .89.

Quitting the Profession A disturbing finding, consistent with the literature, was the teachers’ attitudes toward quitting the profession. As shown in Table 2, only 33.3 percent said that they would like to quit teaching as a profession. Almost 22 percent of the respondents said they wouldlike to quit, while 45 percent answered maybe they would like to quit teaching. Starkly summarized, 66.6 percent of the respondents said that they are thinking of quitting the teaching profession. Of the 184 teachers who said they might like to quit teaching, seventeen (9.2%)said they would very likely quit, fifty (27.2%)would likely quit. Almost a quarter of all teachers in the study were both wanting to and think they might be able to quit teaching. Table 2. Percent Distribution of Teachers’ Position Satisfaction, Desire to Quit and Ability to Quit Satisfied with Position N = 275

Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied TOTAL

Want to Quit N = 276

20.4 56.7 18.5 4.4 100.0

No Maybe Yes

33.3 44.9 21.7 99.9

Able to Quit N = 184

Not a t all Not likely Likely Very likely

13.0 50.5 27.2 9.2 99.9

54 I W. D.WATTS AND A. P. SHORT

Some of the teachers who said they were not able to quit wrote notes on the questionnaire, telling us that they were only waiting to retire. The teaching profession in Texas has serious problems with commitment ot long-term involvement in teaching. The routine loss of as much as a quarter of the profession to other careers could mean that students would be taught by an increasingly inexperienced teacher corps.

Drug Use in the Teaching Profession Of the 277 respondents, only four declined to answer some of the drug items. Table 3 displays teachers’ prevalence and frequency self-reports of drug use over the lifetime, while Table 4 shows usage in the past year and Table 5 in the past month. In comparison to national sample data for adults over twenty-six, teachers reported approximately the same lifetime usage for marijuana and barbiturates, but lower usage for hallucinogens, cocaine and heroin. While teachers reported higher rates of lifetime use for alcohol, amphetamines, and tranquilizers, within the past month, essentially equivalent proportions of usage Table 3. Lifetime Prevalence and Freauencv of Drua Use in Percent

Drugs

Na tionala Sample (1982) No Use

40 or No Use

3-14

15-39

1-2 Occasions

Occasions

Occasions

More Occasions

Alcohol ( N = 267)

11.8

6.4

4.8

18.4

10.5

59.9

Marijuana ( N = 271)

77.0

79.3

12.2

4.8

1.1

2.6

LSD ( N = 273)

NA

98.9

0.4

0.7

0.0

0.0

Hallucinogens ( N = 273)

93.6

98.9

0.7

0.4

0.0

0.0

Cocaine ( N = 273)

91.5

95.6

2.9

1.1

0.4

0.0

Amphetamines ( N = 273)

93.8

88.6

6.2

3.7

0.4

1.1

NA

98.5

1.1

0.0

0.4

0.0

95.2

94.5

4.8

0.4

0.4

0.0

( N = 274) Heroin

96.4

88.7

6.9

3.6

0.0

0.7

( N = 275) Other Narcotics

98.9 NA

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

98.5

0.7

0.7

0.0

0.0

Quaaludes ( N = 273) Barbiturates ( N = 273) Tranquilizers

a Source: Miller, 1983.

T E A C H E R D R U G U S E I 55

Table 4. Prevalence and Frequency of Drug Use in the Last Year in Percent

Drugs Alcohol ( N = 269) Marijuana ( N = 273)

Nationala Sample 11982) No Use

No Use

1-2 Occasions

3- 14 Occasions

15-39 Occasions

40 or More Occasions

36.2

23.0

16.4

32.3

12.6

15.6

. 89.4

97.1

1.1

0.4

0.4

1.1

Cocaine ( N = 274)

96.2

99.3

0.4

0.4

0.0

0.0

Amphetamines (N = 273)

98.3

98.2

0.7

1.1

0.0

0.0

Barbiturates ( N = 275)

98.6

98.9

0.4

0.7

0.0

0.0

Tranquilizers IN = 275)

98.9

96.0

2.5

1.5

0.0

0.0

Source: Miller, 1983.

Table 5. Prevalence and Frequency of Drug Use in Last Month in Percent National8 Sample (1982) No Use

Alcohol ( N = 270)

No Use

1-2 Occasions

3-14 Occasions

15-39 Occasions

40 or More Occasions

43.3

40.0

28.5

24.8

5.9

0.7

Marijuana (N = 273)

93.4

98.2

0.7

0.7

0.0

0.4

Cocaine ( N = 274)

98.8

100.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Amphetamines ( N = 2731

99.4

98.9

0.7

0.4

0.0

0.0

Barbiturates ( N = 275)

>.5

99.3

0.4

0.4

0.0

0.O

Tranquilizers ( N = 275)

>.5

99.3

0.4

0.4

0.0

0.0

Drugs

a Source: Miller, 1983.

were found in the national and teachers samples [38]. The only exception was alcohol; the teacher’s sample has a 3 percent higher use rate than national data. An examination of Tables 3,4, and 5 shows that with the exception of lifetime drug use, drug usage by teachers is very small, although 13.2 percent more teachers report alcohol use in the fast year then in the national sample. Given the low levels of drug use within the past month and even the past year, the sample size will not permit more sophisticated levels of analysis involving controls.

.02

.14**

Professional Off ice

-.01

.05

Job Satisfaction

Position Dissatisfaction

**R

p

< .01 < .05

Years Teaching

Age

-.06

.01 -.02

-.06

Community Office

Quit Profession

-.06

Community Organization

RAPH

Professional Membership

08 -.05

*

.07

Collegial Relations

Overload

.11**

Professional Autonomy

Table 6. Lifetime Drug Use Correlates

-.lo -.03

.21'

-.04

-.o 1

-.01

-.04

-.lo**

-.05

.05

.14*

.15*

-.13**

-.lo

-.02

-.06

-.09

.09

-.01

-.01

-.06

.09

-. 07

-.lo**

.07

.14**

.02

-.05

.09

-.02

.oo

-.04

-.04

-.08

-.06

-.02

.11**

.06

-.oo

-.17* .05

.12

-.13**

.09

.10

.19*

.07

-.08

.09

.08

.13"

-.09

-.06 -.06

.11

-.01

.02

-.07

.14**

-.05

.06 .03 -.06

.01

-.02

-.04 .03

.04

.02

-.07

.04

.07

.05

.04 .04 -.06

.07

-.03

-.01 -.05

.10

-.o 1

.07

-.05

.06

.14

-.01

.08

.09

.02

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-.lo**

.oo

-.lo

.12

-.04

.05

-.o 1

.02

-.oo

-.11

.08

.oo

.07

LSD Hallucinogens Cocaine Amphetamines Quaeludes Barbiturates Tranquilizers Heroin Narcotics

-.24** -.05

-.02 -.25*

.03

.02

-.08

-. 16'

.02

-.14*

.01 -.11**

.20

.08

Occupational Characteristics Alcohol Marguana

TEACHERDRUGUSE I 57

Tables 6,7, and 8 display the correlates between the different forms of drug use and the time frame for frequency and prevalence. Age and years of teaching, as expected, are inversely associated with marijuana lifetime use, and years of teaching with cocaine and other narcotics. Although these relationships are very weak, they are in the predicted direction. Both fewer years of teaching and the younger teachers are weakly associated with increased drug use on most drugs and in most prevalence time frames. Examining the correlations between amphetamine use, age and years of teaching, a different pattern is evident. While there is no significant correlation between age, years of teaching and lifetime amphetamine use, there are significant positive correlations between age and years of teaching and amphetamine use in the past year and past month. These findings are not in the expected direction. For lifetime, past year and past month, the findings support Hypotheses 1 and 2 except for amphetamines for past year and past month. In Table 6, lifetime drug use correlates for the eleven different drugs are reported for all predictor variables. While the correlations are weak, the strongest shows position dissatisfaction correlation with lifetime LSD use. The higher the rate of lifetime LSD usage, the more likely the person is to be dissatisfied with their position. Similarly, the more lifetime marijuana, LSD, other psychedelic and cocaine use, the more likely the teacher is to report conflict with his or her colleagues and administrators.

Stress and Drug Use When examining Table 7 and Table 8, which display correlates of drug use in the last year and month, amphetamine and marijuana use is correlated with stress variables. Marijuana is weakly correlated with job overload for the past year, while amphetamine use is correlated with collegial relations for both past year and past month. By examining the direction and strength of the correlations between professional membership, professional office, community organization and community office in both past year and past month, it is clear that teachers who are members of community and professional organizations are more likely to use amphetamines both within the past month and year. These teachers may be over committed in and out of the classroom. Since the age and years of teaching variables are positively correlated with amphetamine use, at risk teachers are older and more experienced. However, given the small number of respondents who report any type of drug use within the past month or year, and given the weak correlations, generalization from these data must be approached with caution. These findings show that there are significant relationships between measures of stress and selected drug use. Alcohol use in the past month is associated with job overload, while collegial relations are correlated with amphetamine use. Although not shown, alcohol use equivalent to five or more drinks in a row in the last two weeks was measured; it was related to professional offices. In the

58 I w. D. WATTS AND A. P. SHORT

Table 7. Past Year Drug Use Correlates Occupational Characteristics Professional Autonomy Collegial Relations Overload

Alcohol Marijuana Cocaine Amphetamines Barbiturates Tranquilizers

.06

-.01

.03 .07

-.oo

-.08

RAPH

.11**

-.01

.02

.06

-.06

.02

.13** .11**

-.02 -.05

.09

-.07

-.oa

.05

.06

.04 .02

.10

Professional Membership

.04

-.lo

-.09

.22*

.15'

.OJ

Professional Office

.10

-.01

.o 1

.31*

.17*

.14*

Community Organization

-.06

-.lo

-.07

.24*

.08

.o 1

Community Office

-.09

-.05

-.01

.20*

.09

.07

Job Satisfaction

-.03

-.01

-.11**

.oo

.03

Position Dissatisfaction -.03 Quit Profession

.04

-.oo

Age

-.01 -.12*"

.02 -.08

Years Teaching

-.04

-.08

p

** p

.06

-.09 -.lo** -.09

.12** -.13*" .14** .la**

-.o 1

.oa

-.04

-.o 1

.09 .09

-.02 -.06

< .01 < .05

past year, marijuana use was related to collegial stress and amphetamines with work overload and collegial stress. Job satisfaction and position dissatisfaction were associated with amphetamine use in the past year and month, as is tranquilizer use in the last month. Some measures of lifetime drug use (alcohol, LSD, amphetamines) were weakly correlated with professional autonomy. Collegial relations were correlated with marijuana, LSD,hallucinogens, and cocaine. While drug use may be a function of stress in the working environment of school, lifetime drug use, probably drug use prior to teaching, may be a stressor on collegial relations and perceived autonomy. Hypothesis 3 which predicts a correlation between stress measures and lifetime drug use is supported for alcohol, marijuana, LSD, hallucinogens, cocaine, and amphetamines. For drug use in the past year, stress measures are associated with marijuana and amphetamines, while for the past month alcohol and amphetamine use are correlated with stress measures.

T E A C H E R D R U G U S E I 59

Table 8. Past Month Drug Use Correlates Occupational Characteristics Professional Autonomy Collegial Relations Overload RAPH

Alcohol

.03

.06 .11** -.lo

Marijuana Cocaine Amphetamines Barbiturates Tranquilizers

-. 04

.03

.04

.02 .02

.01

.07

.05

-.oo

.13** .09

-.05

.06

-.08

.07

-.04

Professional Membership

.03

-.11*+

.18*

-.11**

.12+*

Professional Office

.14

-.11

.19*

-.04

.lo+*

Community Organization

-.03

-.08

.22*

-.03

.03

Community Office

-.04

-.01

.21

-.05

.05

Job Satisfaction

-.08

.01

Position Dissatisfaction

-.oo

.08

Quit Profession

-.06

Age

-.lo

-.02 -.03

Years Teaching

-.06

-.06

-.12** .12** -.15' .12" .17*

-.04

-.07

-.01

.14**

-.05 -.03

-.12** .05

.oo

.04

* p < .01 * * p < .05

Lifetime LSD use is associated with reported position dissatisfaction, while lifetime amphetamine use is inversely associated with job satisfaction. The more satisfied the teacher is with employment, the lower the likelihood of lifetime amphetamine use. Similarly, amphetamine use in the past year and month is correlated with higher position dissatisfaction. Whether examining amphetamine use over a lifetime, the past year or the past month, amphetamine users are also more likely to express a desire to quit the profession. Since amphetamine use is also associated with professional and community participation, the teachers who use amphetamines are effected by environmental stressors, including dissatisfaction with their present jobs. Hypothesis 4 is supported for amphetamine and LSD use over the lifetime and past year and past month amphetamine use. Personal rigidity is correlated with two lifetime drug use variables, marijuana and cocaine. The less rigid, as measured by the RAPH inventory, the more likely the individual is to report lifetime marijuana or cocaine use. Given that these are

60 I W. D. WATTS AND A.

P. SHORT

popular drugs for experimentation, this finding is consistent with findings in the general population. Hypothesis 5 is supported only for lifetime use of cocaine and marijuana.

Community/Professional Involvement and Drug Use Hypothesis 6, which predicts inverse relationships between drug use and professional and community involvement, produced mixed findings. Professional membership is inversely related to lifetime marijuana and LSD use, while community organization membership is inversely related to lifetime marijuana use. Professional membership is inversely related to marijuana use in the past month. These frndings support the hypothesis that teachers who use drugs are less likely to be integrated into the community and profession as measured by memberships and offices. An unexpected finding is the positive associations between certain forms of drug use and professional and community integration. For example, lifetime alcohol, amphetamine and quaalude use are positively associated with respondents holding professional offices. Similarly, last year and month amphetamine use is positively correlated with all four measures of professional and community involvement. The stereotypical marijuana and cocaine user does not participate in professional organizations, while the amphetamine user is more active in both community and professional organizations.

DISCUSSION Dissatisfaction with their specific job and the profession is strong among this sample of teachers in Texas. Almost 23 percent are dissatisfied with their present position, while over 66 percent may want to leave the profession. Some of the sources of strain which lead to a desire to quit the profession are intrinsic to what occurs in schools around the state. Clearly, the amount of professional autonomy teachers have, the equality of their relationships with colleagues and supervisors, as well as the sense of overwork that they have, contribute to the stress that teachers translate into job dissatisfaction and, eventually, burnout. Wanting to leave the profession is not the only undesirable outcome of stress for teachers. A common form of stress reducing activity in American society, particularly among college students, has been drug use. Teachers, like other professionals, are yesterday’s college students. While lifetime drug use for this population of teachers is no higher than a national sample of older Americans on most drugs, teachers have higher lifetime use rates for alcohol, amphetamines and tranquilizers than the national comparison data. Drugs of abuse among teachers appear to be qualitatively different from the drugs that are characteristics of younger groups. Teachers tend more toward use of amphetamines and tranquilizers, as well as, of course, alcohol. These drugs are

TEACHERDRUGUSE / 61

associated with adult status, as opposed to drugs characteristic of the youthoriented drug culture. There is one drug that has consistently higher rates of use among this sample of teachers than the national comparison data: alcohol. Only 6.4 percent of teachers report no use ever, 23 percent no use in the last year and 40 percent no use in the last month. In each time period this rate of no use is lower than the national adult sample. Use of alcohol, even at higher than national rates, may not be a problem in and of itself. Data were also gathered on frequency of heavy drinking. Over 12 percent of the sample reported drinking five or more drinks in a row on one occasion in the last two weeks, while 6.5 percent reported drinking five or more drinks in a row on three or more occasions in the last two weeks. One respondent reported drinking five or more drinks in a row in the last two weeks on over fifteen occasions. Given that teachers are increasingly responsible for their students, additional attention needs to be given to teachers, their problems with alcohol and the effects on children. The teachers in this study experience stress and some drug use is associated with that stress. Amphetamine, alcohol and marijuana use are weakly correlated with one or more of the measures of stress used in this study. More research is needed on the relation of stress to drug use among teachers and other high stress occupations and professions, such as police, physicians and pilots. Additional research is needed on the role of occupation and personal stress for teachers’ drug and alcohol use, so that effective intervention efforts may be planned. These findings suggest that the teaching profession, overall, adapts to stress more by considering leaving the profession. Many teachers do use some drugs (e.g., alcohol and amphetamines), in conjunction with stress. More research is needed on the range of other responses to stress that teachers may use. When appropriate, teachers as professionals should be honored for their willingness to undertake difficult work without seeking drugs as a relief from stress. From another perspective, the nation and state must question the equation of demands and rewards that produces two-thirds of our teachers who say they may quit the profession. The consequences of job dissatisfaction include both burnout and other negative outcomes, such as limited drug use. A very small proportion of teachers, not significantly different from a national sample of adults, is involved in limited amount of drug use. Alcohol use, while greater than that reported by the national sample, is related to work overload, age, and professional office. Focusing on past year and month usage, amphetamine use is significantly and consistently related to many of the predictor variables. Amphetamine use is associated with professional and community involvement. Here we apparently have a form of drug use that appears to be integrated into mainstream society rather than a subcultural activity. Of course, amphetamine use may still be masked and hidden from associates, rather than part of a subculture. Drug use

62 / W. D. WATTS A N D A. P. SHORT

among teachers is quantitatively less than what is found among more recognized drug users and qualitatively different types of drugs tend to be used. These findings have significant implications for teacher training. Teacher training institutions and school districts are becoming more aware of the importance of training future and current teachers about drugs. The purpose of pre-service and in-service instruction on drug abuse is often to train teachers to identify signs of drug abuse among their students and to educate students about the dangers of drugs. Educational programs need to inform teachers about stress and drug use, particularly alcohol and amphetamine use. The pattern reported here of high professional and community involvement associated with amphetamine use indicates that drug use patterns varies according to occupational status and age. Drug abuse education should help to prevent the development of an occupational pattern of drug use. Although not explored in this study, the consequences of stress may not be uniform. For example, Vance and Schelchty have found that students with ACT scores in the lowest 20 percent constitute a full one-third of those who intend to teach at age thirty, the more talented and gifted in the profession may choose to go elsewhere [39]. More information is needed on the differential adaptation strategies of teachers and other professionals who experience stress. The consequences of a loss of qualified teachers for the nation are great. As more experienced teachers struggle with high stress, the teaching profession will be increasingly made up of the inexperienced ,and the less talented. Among those who stay, some may adopt alcohol, amphetamine, or other forms of drug abuse to chemically cope. What are the sources of stress for the teaching profession? This article has examined some of the internal causes of stress. More information is needed on other causes of stress that may be particularly affecting the teaching profession. Like social work and other semi-professions, teachers are undergoing professionalization. Unlike social workers, teachers may not be as willing to participate in the process. Research is needed on the effects of external and internal stress on job satisfaction, burnout, and deviance, including drug use. What are the sources of professionalization? Is state imposed professionalization problematic for teachers? If so, with what consequences? Further study with large samples of teachers are needed to confirm the results of this study. Since the number of teachers who reported drug use is small, it is impossible to control for a range of variables. A national sample of teachers needs to be drawn to confirm or reject the findings of this study regarding drug use and stress. Larger samples would enable more carefully controlled analyses that would help identify causal elements in both burnout and drug use.

TEACHERDRUGUSE I 63

REFERENCES

1. C. D. Chambers, J. A. Inciardi, and H. A. Siegal, Chemical Coping: A Report on Legal Drug Use in the United States, Spectrum Publications, New York, 1975. 2. J. R. P. French Jr. and R. D. Caplan, Organizational Stress and Individual Strain, in The Failure o f Success, A. J. Marrow (ed.), Amacom, New York, pp. 30-66, 1972. 3. H. J. Freudenberger, Staff Burnout, Journalof SocialZssues, 30, pp. 159-165, 1974. 4. C. Maslach, Understanding Burnout: Definitional Issues in Analyzing a Complex Phenomenon, in Job Stress and Burnout: Research, Theory, and Intervention, W. S. Paine (ed.), Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, 1982. 5. C. Cherniss, Professional Burnout in Human Service Organizations, Praeger, New York, 1980. 6. H. B. Kaplan (ed.), Psychosocial Stress: Trends in Theory and Research, Academic Press, New York, 1983. 7. J. R. P. French, R. D. Caplan and R. B. Harrington, The Mechanisms o f Job Stress and Strain, John Wiley, New York, 1975. 8. J. J. LaRocco, J. S. House, and J. R. P. French, Social Support, Occupational Stress, and Health, Journal o f Health and Social Behavior, 2 1 ~ 3 pp. , 202-218, 1980. 9. E. L. Boyer, High School: A Report on Secondary Education in America, Harper and Row, New York, 1983. 10. National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1983. 11. P. Kalker, Teacher Stress and Burnout: Causes and Coping Strategies, Contemporary Education, 56, pp. 16-19, 1984. 12. Y. Gold, Burnout: A Major Problem for the Teaching Profession, Education, 104:3, pp. 271-274, 1984. 13. A. G. Dworkin, Teacher Burnout in the Public Schools: Structural Causes and Consequences f or Children, SUNY Press, New York, 1987. 14. C. Kyriacou and I. Sutliffe, Teacher Stress and Satisfaction, Educational Research, 21:2, pp. 89-96, 1979. 15. R. V. D’Arienzo, J. C. Moracco, and R. J. Krajewski, Stress in Teaching: A Comparison of Perceived Occupational Stress Factors between Special Education and Regular Classroom Teachers, University Press of America, Washington, D.C., 1980. 16. A. I. Cedodine, Job Burnout in Public Education: Symptoms, Causes and Survival Skills, Columbia University, New York, 1982. 17. B. A. Farber, Teacher Burnout: Assumptions, Myths, and Issues, Teachers College Record, 86:2, pp. 321-338, 1984. 18. J. J. Gorrell, N. J. Bregman, H. A. McAllister, and T. J. Lipcomb, An Analysis of Perceived Stress in Elementary and Secondary Student and FullTime Teachers, Journal of Experimental Education, 54: 1, pp. 11-14, 1985.

64 I W. D.W A T T S A N D A. P. S H O R T

19. C. Kyriacou, Coping Actions and Occupational Stress among School Teachers, Research in Education, 24,pp. 57-6 1, 1980. 20. D. J. Leach, A Model of Teacher Stress and Its Implication for Management, The Journal of Educational Administration, 22:2, pp. 157-172, 1984. 21. M. D. Litt and D. C. Turk, Sources of Stress and Dissatisfaction in Experienced High School Teachers, Journal of Educational Research, 78:3, pp. 178-185, 1985. 22. G. W. Sutton and T. J. Huberty, An Evaluation of Teacher Stress and Job Satisfaction, Education, 105:2, pp. 189-192, 1984. 23. A. G. Dworkin, When Teachers Give Up: Teacher Burnout, Teacher Turnover, and Their Impact on Children, Hogg Foundation, Austin, Texas, 1985. 24. J. N. Humphrey, Coping with Stress in Teaching, ARM Press, New York, 1986. 25. R. D. Caplan, S. Cobb, J. R. P. French, Jr., R. V. Harrison, and S. R. Pinnean, Jr., Job Demands and Worker Health: Main Effects and Occupational Differences, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, U.S.Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1975. 26. T. L. Conway, R. Vickers, H. W. Word, and R. H. Rahe, Occupational Stress and Variation in Cigarette, Coffee, and Alcohol Consumption, Journal o f Health and Social Behavior, 22:2, pp. 155-164, June 1981. 27. M. J. Fimian, J. Zackerman, and R. McHardy, Substance Abuse and Teacher Stress, Journal of Drug Education, 15:2, pp. 139-155, 1985. 28. H. J. Freudenberger, The Professional and the Human Services Worker: Some Solutions to the Problems They Face Working Together, Journal of DrugZssues, 6,pp. 90-99, 1976. 29. C. Maslach, Burned Out, Human Behavior, 5 , pp. 16-22, 1976. 30. K. Hamel and D. Bracken, Factor Structure in the Job Stress Questionnaire (JSQ) in Three Occupational Groups, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46,pp. 777-786, 1986. 3 1. J. P. Robinson and P. R. Shaver, Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1973. 32. D. C. Miller, Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement, David McKay Company, New York, 1977. 33. L. Johnston, Drugs and American Youth, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1972. 34. L. Johnston, P. M. O’Malley, and J. G. Bachman, Drug Use Among American High School Students, College Students, and Other Young Adults: National Trends through 1985, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1986. 35. J. S. Long, Confirmatory Fhctor Analysis, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, 1983. 36. D. Friesen and M. I. Williams, Organizational Stress Among Teachers, Canadian Journal of Education, 10: 1, pp. 13-34, 1985. 37. E. G. Carmines and R. A. Zeller, Reliability and Validity Assessment, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, 1983.

TEACHERDRUGUSE

1 65

38. J. D. Miller, National Survey on Drug Abuse: Main Findings 1982, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1983. 39. V. Vance and P. Schelchty, The Distribution of Academic Ability in the Teaching Force: Policy Implications, Phi Delta Kappan, 64: 1, pp. 22-21, 1982.

Direct reprint requests to:

W. David Watts College of Arts and Sciences P. 0. Box 767, University Station Southeastern Louisiana University Hammond, LA 70402