Point-Counterpoint: Drug Testing

The Positives of Mandatory Random Student Drug-testing

By Regina Wainwright

Throughout the country, school districts are implementing mandatory random student drug-testing programs. Currently, there are more than 400 such programs in place. Critics of student drug-testing programs argue that this is an invasion of privacy or an infringement on a student's civil rights.

In June 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that junior high and high school students participating in competitive extracurricular activities could be randomly drug-tested and that random drug-testing programs are not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Student rights to privacy are adhered to, with drug-test results remaining confidential and not becoming part of the school record. Test results are not disclosed to administration, faculty or staff. Students may not be referred to law enforcement. The desired outcome of a mandatory random student drug-testing program is to intervene and provide assistance to a potential problem in the making. Prevention, not punishment, is the primary goal.

As the project director of Chandler Unified School District program, I view mandatory random student drug-testing as another method to provide students with an "out" when peer pressure pushes them toward experimentation with drugs or alcohol.

We live in a world where the media - via television, music, video and the Internet - send the message that drug use is not only acceptable, but a normal part of maturing into adulthood. The short- and long-term effects of alcohol and drug use are negated and oftentimes viewed as humorous. The reality is that drugs and alcohol are prevalent in our culture. What drug-testing programs attempt to do is create a multifaceted approach to attacking what is a societal influence and assist as a deterrent to initial or continued drug use. It is another tool to be added to existing drug-prevention efforts in a community. Research shows that the earlier a student initiates drug or alcohol use, the greater the chance that he or she will develop a substance-abuse problem later in life.

Through random testing, students are provided with a valid excuse to say "no" that their peers can respect and may also admire. The idea that non-participation in a desired activity may be the result of a positive drug test is viewed as valid and understood by their peers. By carrying out random testing, we create a window to discover potential drug problems early, opening the door to counseling and intervention. To limit our ability as adults to assist students in need of such assistance would be negligent on our part.

Critics of mandatory random drug-testing state that districts that are considering implementing a testing program will discourage students from participating in extracurricular competitive activities. Information gathered from districts with ongoing programs shows that this is not only a false perception, but that the opposite outcome occurs.

One example is Polk County Schools in Florida, which after implementing a drug-testing program saw an increase in student participation. In the Chandler Unified School District, the number of students participating in activities has also increased in the three years that our program has been active. When questioned, parents and students have responded that they feel having a drug-testing program in place is a positive deterrent that they would like to see continue in the district.

The concept of mandatory random student drug-testing is not to take control away from parents or in any way diminish the role that parents play in a student's life. The home life is still the most vital and powerful influence on a teen when it comes to choices about drugs and alcohol. We have at our disposal a tool that, through student surveys, has been shown to be effective in assisting in this decision-making process.

In a survey of the students in my district enrolled in the drug-testing pool, 57 percent responded that drug-testing makes them want to avoid drugs and alcohol. Seventy-four percent of respondents stated that they approve of mandatory random drug-testing on their campus.

I have spent many hours in discussion with the students in the Chandler Unified School District participating in our mandatory random drug-testing program. Most have stated that they feel the program has a positive impact on the decisions being made by themselves and their peers. If we can alter, through the process of implementing a mandatory random drug-testing program, the decision made by just one student to not begin that path of drug or alcohol experimentation, we have made a positive difference in a student's life.

Regina Wainwright is the random student drug-testing project director for the Chandler (Arizona) Unified School District. Previously, she was a high school assistant principal for six years and taught in various settings for 14 years, both in the United States as well as England and Hong Kong.

Negatives of Drug-testing

By Jennifer Kern

Athletic coaches and activity directors should think hard before embracing the federal government's solution to student drug use: random student drug-testing. In light of scant success from years of "Just Say No" and zero-tolerance strategies, I empathize with the desire for innovative approaches to handling substance abuse issues among our youth.  However, these controversial drug-testing programs are costly, invasive, prone to human error, unproven, and perhaps most importantly, potentially counterproductive. In fact, this approach actually runs counter to well-established principles of how educators and parents can best promote healthy choices among adolescents, particularly those most "at-risk."

The best scientific research available calls into question whether random student drug-testing is an effective deterrent. Educators should note the American Academy of Pediatrics' policy statement opposing involuntary drug-testing of adolescents at school or at home, which emphasizes that more research is needed on both the safety and effectiveness of testing programs before they are implemented.  New research published in the Journal of Adolescent Health this November bolsters their warnings. The randomized experimental trials found random drug and alcohol testing did not reliably reduce the past month's drug and alcohol use among student-athletes.

"The big thing that people say is you got to give kids a reason not to use drugs, and drug-testing is a reason," lead researcher Linn Goldberg told The New York Times. "That's not what we found. You can look at testing as a way to catch an early addiction, but as a deterrent, which this study was looking at, we didn't find any evidence that testing was a deterrent."

There is even evidence that student drug-testing, in addition to being ineffective as a deterrent, may also be counterproductive to efforts to reach students' key attitudes and beliefs. Researchers from Oregon Health and Science University found attitudinal changes among students in schools with drug-testing programs in place that indicate new risk factors for future substance use. Student-athletes in schools with drug-testing reported less positive attitudes towards school, less faith in the benefits of drug-testing, and less belief that testing was a reason not to use drugs, among other indicators.

These findings support objections that suspicionless testing can erode relationships of trust between students and adults at school, hindering open communication and damaging an essential component of a safe and rewarding learning environment. Few studies have examined other potential harms of random drug-testing in schools, yet professional societies with expertise in this area, from the Association of Addiction Professionals to the National Education Association, have expressed numerous misgivings.

Drug-testing is arguably invasive and the collection of a specimen can be especially alienating to adolescents. Schools must ask students to disclose their private medical information regarding their prescription medications to try to control false positives, raising additional anxieties about breaches in confidentiality and false accusations.

Students (and their parents) may object to drug-testing based on principle, fear of humiliation, or a desire to avoid detection. Testing can, therefore, have the unanticipated effect of keeping students from participating in extracurricular activities - the very activities that provide supervision during the peak hours of adolescent drug use from 3 to 6 p.m., and which are likely to increase students' connection to caring adults at school. Of particular concern are students at the "margins" who have much to gain from participating in extracurricular activities. Drug-testing programs also punish those who test positive by suspending them from after-school activities at the very moment they need structure and engagement.

Testing may trigger oppositional behavior, such as trying to "beat" the test. The American Academy of Pediatrics warns that mandatory testing may inadvertently encourage more students to abuse alcohol - not included in many standard testing panels - or may motivate some drug-involved adolescents to switch to harder drugs that leave the system more quickly.

For its high price tag, testing is inefficient when it comes to detecting drug problems. Though it may provide a false sense of security among school officials and parents, testing detects only a tiny fraction of users and misses too many who might be in real trouble.

Linn Goldberg, lead researcher from Oregon Health and Science University, echoes these concerns: "Here's what I see is the big problem. If you put in drug-testing and you think it works, then you're not going to put anything else in. You're not going to care about anything else because you probably feel, ‘We've taken care of it.' . . . They're happy as can be that they think they've got just a wonderful program. In reality, kids are using just as many drugs and the administrators are walking around in their dream world."

Coaches and activity directors know all too well that we cannot afford to gamble our scarce resources on programs that may do more harm than good. After five years of going down this path, the Janesville School District in Wisconsin abandoned its random drug-testing program with a $20,000 annual price tag because it failed to reduce drug use among students, particularly binge drinking. The Dublin School District in Ohio abandoned its $35,000 drug-testing program and instead hired two full-time substance-abuse counselors. For most cash-strapped schools, even when a drug problem is detected there are often no qualified substance-abuse professionals on staff to appropriately handle the problem.

We would better serve our young people by facing the reality that there is no quick fix for the complex issues surrounding substance abuse. Random drug-testing, like the "Just Say No" approach, oversimplifies the complexities of life our teenagers face these days. Instead of investing in surveillance, we should spend our time and resources educating students through comprehensive, interactive and honest drug education with identification of, and assistance for, students whose lives are disrupted by substance use.

Jennifer Kern, a research associate at the Drug Policy Alliance, spearheads the New York-based group's campaign to provide parents, caregivers and educators with tools to oppose random student drug-testing in schools. She is co-author of Making Sense of Student Drug Testing: Why Educators Are Saying No. For more information see <www.drugpolicy.org> and <www.satefy1st.org>.