Dmytro Zinkevych/Shutterstock For the past 30 years, Maia Szalavitz has researched and reported on science, drug policy, and health. Before that, in her early twenties, she herself became addicted to cocaine and heroin, sometimes injecting the drugs several times a day. Even after overdosing, after being suspended from Columbia University, and after getting arrested for dealing—facing a 15-years-to-life sentence under New York’s now-repealed Rockefeller drug laws—Szalavitz struggled to quit. In her latest book, Unbroken Brain: A Revolutionary New Way of Understanding Addiction , Szalavitz explores why getting off drugs is so difficult. She challenges the public to see addiction as a neurological learning disorder—much more like autism and ADHD than a moral failing, or a chronic illness. This conversation has been edited and condensed. R achel Cohen: Your book takes aim at some of the nation’s central narratives around drug addiction. Can you start by describing some of these, and why...
(Photo: Shutterstock) W ednesday marks the ten-year anniversary of legal conservatives’ last great effort to kill school integration in the Supreme Court. That effort failed—though few understood that at the time. To this day, misconceptions abound about whether voluntary school desegregation is constitutionally permitted in the United States. The legal showdown came in a landmark decision called Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 . Five Supreme Court justices rejected voluntary desegregation plans in Seattle and Louisville , finding it unconstitutional for school districts to rely on the race of individual students when making student assignment decisions. But, it turned out, it was the opinion of just one of those justices that really mattered. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote a plurality opinion, co-signed by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, concluding that the districts’ race-based desegregation plans were...
AP Photo/Kalamazoo Gazette-MLive Media Group, Mark Bugnaski
AP Photo/Kalamazoo Gazette-MLive Media Group, Mark Bugnaski This 110-year-old home in Kalamazoo, Michigan, was the subject of a $115,000 settlement with the city after homeowner Brandi Crawford-Johnson discovered the house's lead-based paint was responsible for her child's elevated lead levels in 2013. O ver the past several years, education advocates and civil rights groups have been sounding the alarm on the harms of exclusionary school discipline policies. Critics say these punishments—suspensions, expulsions, and school-based arrests—are increasingly doled out for minor infractions, and disproportionately given to students of color. A National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper published in May adds a new wrinkle to the debate on disparities in school discipline: Economists found causal evidence linking young children with higher exposures to lead in their bloodstream with an increased probability of getting suspended from school and placed in juvenile detention...
(AP Photo/Seth Perlman) Protestors of Mayor Rahm Emanuel's plan to close dozens of Chicago public schools rally at the Illinois State Capitol in 2013. F or more than 20 years, the mayor of Chicago has had the power to appoint not only the CEO of the nation’s third-largest school system, but also the entire school board that governs it. But after years of protests from Chicago residents, the Illinois state legislature may finally end this controversial governance structure, potentially setting the stage for much larger public school shifts in the Windy City. Other than Chicago, every school district in Illinois has an elected school board, as do more than 95 percent of school districts nationwide. But in 1995, as a reform strategy for the state’s largest and poorest district, state lawmakers passed legislation granting Chicago’s then-Mayor Richard M. Daley greater authority to appoint his city’s school leadership. Rahm Emanuel succeeded Daley as mayor in 2011, and took control over...
In the five decades since its launch, more than 33 million low-income children have participated in Head Start, the federal government’s early-childhood education program designed to narrow the gaps between rich and poor students by providing disadvantaged children with comprehensive preschool. Nearly one million children were enrolled in 2015 alone, and research has shown that the program has had positive effects on children later in life and in their education.
But last month, the Brookings Institution, an influential, centrist think tank based in Washington, D.C., published a “consensus statement” on the “current state of scientific knowledge” as it pertains to pre-K research, and failed to include some of the most important research available on Head Start’s impact.
There’s been growing bipartisan interest in expanding pre-kindergarten systems, as legislators and policy experts increasingly view early-childhood learning as a smart investment for youth development and success later in life. The Brookings report, a collaboration among ten social scientists over the past year, was created to help inform policymakers and practitioners on how best to expand and improve pre-K systems based on the existing research evidence.
Yet the Brookings consensus statement, entitled “Puzzling It Out,” is puzzling. The authors write:
“Convincing evidence on the longer-term impacts of scaled pre-K programs on academic outcomes and school progress is sparse, precluding broad conclusions. The evidence that does exist often shows that pre-K induced improvements in learning are detectable during elementary school, but studies also reveal null or negative longer-term impacts for some programs.”
In fact, the most prominent “scaled pre-K program” is Head Start, but here’s what the Brookings consensus statement has to say about the program:
The challenges of scale-up are illustrated by the national Head Start program, for which consistently strong and enduring impacts have been elusive. … Studies examining adolescent and adult outcomes for graduates of Head Start programs during the 1970s and 1980s found positive impacts into early adulthood … but the results of a large-scale, randomized trial of Head Start launched in 2002 were much less encouraging. Despite a boost for children’s academic skills at the end of their Head Start year, the Head Start Impact Study (HSIS) found that these initial gains rapidly dissipated once children began formal schooling.
Curiously, “Puzzling It Out” fails to mention the recent work out of University of California, Berkeley, where social scientists have reanalyzed data used in the 2002 HSIS study, finding much more positive results than previously understood. In a policy brief synthesizing these newer studies, Claire Montialoux of Berkeley’s Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, writes that the original HSIS conclusions “are too pessimistic and substantially underestimate the benefits of Head Start.”
Brookings’s consensus report also ignores the work of two of its own research fellows, Lauren Bauer and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, who published a study last summer finding that Head Start participation increased the probability that students would graduate from high school, attend college, and obtain a post-secondary degree. The researchers also found that overall, and particularly among African Americans, Head Start led to social, emotional, and behavioral gains that were evident in adulthood.
Bauer told the Prospect that she disagrees with the new report’s conclusion that Head Start has largely failed to produce long-term gains. “I think we have fairly convincing evidence from the Perry preschool program, from the Abecedarian program, from the quasi-experimental long-term studies of Head Start, that all suggest that decades after the opportunity to get a high-quality preschool education, children’s’ lives become meaningfully better,” Bauer says. She was not involved in drafting the “Puzzling It Out” report, and says she could not speak to how the authors chose what to include or exclude.
When asked about the report’s omission of positive Head Start studies, Deborah Phillips, a psychology professor at Georgetown and the report’s lead author, first responded by saying that the report simply wasn’t focused on Head Start, and that her team of collaborators “did not delve into that evidence base [when] coming up with their consensus statement.”
Yet their report specifically discusses Head Start, and presents conclusions strongly suggesting that the research to date on the program is not notable. When pressed on this, Phillips said: “Again, we just did not look at that secondary data [from Berkeley]. I think in another year it will be a perfect time to draw conclusions, but for this effort—we were doing much of our work in the fall and early winter and we knew more work would be coming out—we just didn’t feel we could reframe it and include it. But all of us feel it is very important work.”
Important as the work may be, the coalition of scholars working on the new Brookings report apparently saw no reason to let it influence their “consensus” statement. Which, in turn, raises some questions about what, exactly, drives consensus in the first place.