Psychologists Debunk ‘Harmful’ Policies Still Used in US Schools

Abstinence-only sex education programs are among many practices in U.S. schools that are harmful to children, psychologists have warned.

In a new book titled Investigating School Psychology, researchers have carried out a review of studies to examine which school psychology practices pose a risk to young people by giving them misleading or unscientific information.

They warn that many school programs, including zero tolerance policies, are “entrenched in school culture” but are often unsupported by scientific evidence or based on “fringe science.”

Not only do these strategies fail to keep children safe, they also direct crucial funds away from evidence-based practices, such as education that involves teaching young people about contraception.

Speaking to Newsweek, Stephen Hupp, a professor of psychology at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville and one of the editors of the book, said:

“Educators want to do everything they can to make children’s lives better, and this often involves getting behind programs that are designed to improve children’s lives. Unfortunately, many programs that sound like they might work, simply don’t. Although the book mostly pulls from U.S. studies, children are exposed to pseudoscientific practices around the globe.”

Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs have been found ineffective because they do not delay sexual initiation or reduce sexual risk behaviors. In fact, the researchers note, sex education laws and policies emphasizing abstinence-only approaches are associated with increased rates of teen pregnancies and birth.

Despite this, such programs have historically been supported by the federal government and state policies continue to prioritize abstinence, without additional requirements regarding contraceptive methods.

Similarly, the use of infant simulator dolls continue to be popular in classrooms, but studies suggest they fail to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies.

The researchers also draw attention to the use of ‘zero tolerance policies’ in U.S. schools. Under zero tolerance, students who break certain school rules face mandatory penalties, including suspension and referral to law enforcement.

However, the researchers note, the practice can actually encourage misbehavior and doesn’t increase academic achievement.

Other academic interventions criticized in the book include ‘brain training apps’–which do not provide long-term improvement in working memory.

Hupp, who is the editor of the magazine Skeptical Inquirer: The Magazine for Science and Reason, added: “The main downside of ineffective programs is that they waste time and effort for educators and youth.

“Sometimes, effective programs are passed over in place of ineffective ones. In the worst cases, programs actually cause direct harm. For example, research showed that youth exposed to ‘Scared Straight’ programs were actually more likely to reoffend than youth who were not in the program.”

Scared Straight programs saw children interact with criminals and visit prison environments to deter them from engaging in poor behavior, but research has shown they were ineffective and potentially harmful.

There are several ways school psychologists can protect themselves from believing in pseudoscience and engaging in dubious practices, according to the book’s editors. They recommend approaching ideas with a critical lens and engaging in critical thinking.

Do you have a tip on a science story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about education? Let us know via science@newsweek.com.