Pubdate: Tue, 15 Jan 2008
Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer (WA)
Copyright: 2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Contact:  http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/408
Author: Jennifer Kern
Note: Jennifer Kern is a research associate at the Drug Policy 
Alliance and co-author of "Making Sense of Student Drug Testing: Why 
Educators Are Saying No"; drugpolicy.organd safety1st.org.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?214 (Drug Policy Alliance)

DRUG TESTING STUDENTS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE

The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy descends upon 
Washington state Thursday and Friday to host two summits designed to 
entice local educators to start drug testing students -- randomly and 
without cause.

Random drug testing in schools, made a priority by the Bush 
administration, may not fly in this state, as the Washington Supreme 
Court is considering a challenge to the policy under the higher 
privacy protections of the state constitution. However, objections go 
beyond constitutional concerns. Student drug testing programs are 
invasive, unproven, expensive and, perhaps most important, 
potentially counterproductive.

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

Random student drug testing programs are unproven. The American 
Academy of Pediatrics' policy statement says, "There is little 
evidence of the effectiveness of school-based drug testing in the 
scientific literature." In fact, the only national, peer-reviewed 
study conducted on the topic compared 94,000 students in almost 900 
U.S. schools with and without a drug testing program, and found 
virtually no difference in illegal drug use. Last November, 
researchers from Oregon Health and Science University published 
research findings from randomized experimental trials that found 
random drug and alcohol testing did not reliably reduce past month 
drug and alcohol use among student athletes.

For its high price tag, testing is inefficient in 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. The Dublin 
School District in Ohio abandoned its $35,000 drug-testing program 
and instead hired two full-time substance abuse counselors.

Finally, and perhaps most troubling, there is evidence that random 
drug testing programs are counterproductive. The researchers from 
OHSU found attitudinal changes among students in schools with drug 
testing programs indicate new risk factors for future substance use. 
Student athletes in schools with drug testing reported less positive 
attitudes toward school, less faith in the benefits of drug testing 
and less belief that testing was a reason not to use drugs, among 
other indicators. Those findings support objections that 
suspicionless testing can erode relationships of trust between 
students and adults at school, damaging an essential component of a 
safe and rewarding learning environment.

There are numerous other potential unintended consequences of random 
student drug testing program. Testing erects counterproductive 
barriers to participation in extracurricular activities -- the very 
activities that provide structure and supervision during the peak 
hours of adolescent drug use from 3-6 p.m. Testing may also 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.

We would better serve young people by facing the reality that there 
is no quick fix for the complex issues surrounding substance abuse. 
Random drug testing, such as the "Just Say No" approach, 
oversimplifies the complexities of life 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.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom