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