School boards weigh pros and cons of drug testing

By Del Stover

02/24/04 -- In his State of the Union Address, President Bush made clear his views on the issue of testing students for drug abuse. He proposed an additional $23 million in federal grants to support school drug testing programs.

If approved by Congress, the money no doubt will be snatched up by local school systems. But there won't be a universal rush. School officials across the nation are divided over whether drug testing is worthwhile.

The U.S. Supreme Court okayed the testing of student athletes in 1995 and two years ago, it upheld an Oklahoma school system's right to randomly test students who participate in extracurricular activities.

But, in reality, the nation's schools have not rushed to stock up on oral swabs and urine cups. According to a 2003 University of Michigan study, only 19 percent of secondary schools conduct some form of drug testing -- and most limit testing to students suspected of illicit drug use. Only 5 percent of high schools test athletes on a random basis, and only 2 percent test students in extracurricular activities.

The power of deterrence

One school system that's firmly in the drug-testing camp is Illinois' Community High School District 117.

Of 100 students subjected to the district's new random drug-testing program, only two have tested positive and three others refused to take the test, says Superintendent Dennis Hockney. These students were suspended temporarily from extracurricular activities and referred for counseling.

Identifying students who need help is an important reason for launching the program, Hockney says. But he sees additional benefits, as well. "It sends a message that we're serious about an alcohol and drug-free environment. It also gives students an [excuse] to say 'No' when offered drugs."

Memphis school officials, however, have eschewed drug testing in favor of prevention and intervention programs, says school board President Patrice Robinson.

"We need to stick to our core business, and our core business is education," Robinson says. "We can't continue to take on the role of parents."

Elsewhere, school officials cite a variety of reasons they've steered clear of drug testing, including a philosophical opposition to such intrusive measures, a desire to avoid unneeded controversy, and the cost of testing.

Perhaps the most common reason cited, however, is simply that student drug abuse isn't the "hot button" issue that some politicians try to make it out to be. Teenage drug abuse declined 11 percent over the past two years, says a recent government report.

That's not to say local school officials have their heads in the sand. In Illinois, Superintendent Charles McCormick of the Kaneland school district is under no illusions that his staff can ignore the issue of student drug abuse.

"I just think that drug testing as a general screening tool is not a proper practice for a school district," he says. "I think our role is more properly to provide extracurricular activities that give kids other things to do, and to educate students on the downside of drug abuse."

Research not conclusive

For local school officials seeking to balance the pros and cons of drug testing, it would help if a body of research made clear the effects of testing. But the research is not extensive -- and the findings too often are contradictory.

For example, one Oregon study found that athletes at a high school with mandatory, random drug testing reported a rate of student drug use that was only one-fourth that at another school.

But a University of Michigan study did not find any statistical difference in the level of student drug use between schools that conduct drug testing and those that do not.

Despite this lack of consensus, the research still is having an impact. In Indiana, a state university study that concluded drug testing was effective proved persuasive among local school officials across the state, says Thomas E. Wheeler, a member of the board of NSBA's Council of School Attorneys.

Today, he estimates, as many as half of the state's school systems have adopted or are discussing a drug testing policy.

Political pressure

At the national level, a lack of definitive research is not slowing the political debate over the virtues of drug testing. Soon after President Bush's remarks, Rep. John Peterson (R-Pa.) introduced a bill to provide grants for random drug testing of all students. Although it would have an opt-out provision, some legal experts question whether such an all-inclusive program would be constitutional.

The bill's co-sponsor, Rep. Tom Osborne (R-Neb.), says: "As a former educator and coach, I have seen first hand that student drug testing can be used as a powerful preventive measure. For many youth, the possibility alone of being tested for drugs is reason enough to deter them from using drugs."

For civil liberties groups, the political push for drug testing is another disturbing step in a trend toward increasingly intrusive measures to battle illicit drugs, along with random locker searches and drug-sniffing dogs.

Last November, 14 police officers stormed a South Carolina high school in a drug raid and detained 107 students at gunpoint while they unsuccessfully searched for drugs.

"That President Bush would promote this in his State of the Union Address just affirms what we already know about the student drug testing issue: It's about politics, not the well-being of our schoolchildren," says Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project.

Even if school officials believe there is a need for drug testing, they should take a hard look at whether they are doing enough with education, counseling, and prevention programs, says Marsha Rosenbaum, director of the Safety First Project of the Drug Policy Alliance, a drug-education group that questions the value of drug testing.

"I think that student drug testing has the allure of being a simple, quick and dirty solution," she says. "But anything that looks that easy and simple, you really have to look at it critically. The alternatives to across-the-board suspicion-less drug testing are much more attractive."

Parent input urged

To Pennsylvania's Delaware Valley school district, the views of parents outweigh the arguments of politicians and advocates. The district launched a drug-testing program in 1998 after a student was caught distributing heroin in school.

"If it had been marijuana, there would not have been a public outcry," says Superintendent Candis Finan. "But because it was heroin, the whole community went crazy and said, 'You have to do something.' "

The district conducts random drug tests on students in athletics and extracurricular activities and students who drive to school. Eight to 10 students test positive annually, and that's a noticeable decrease from earlier years, Finan says. "It truly has deterred students from using any illegal drugs."

When developing a policy on drugs, National PTA President Linda Hodge says it's important to involve parents and to design a program that is not punitive.

Although most schools claim that their policies are not punitive, some schools impose lengthy suspensions or bar students from extracurricular activities. Some school systems also don't appear to make much use of testing results.

"In so many places, there's no intervention or treatment available -- or none that parents can afford," Hodge says. "So what is the purpose of testing? What do you plan to do with the results?"

One school system that's tried to answer these questions is the Bethel Park, Pa., district, which does not conduct random testing but does test students where there is a reasonable suspicion of drug abuse.

In the past year, officials have tested 25 students -- half at the parents' request, says school spokesperson Vickie Flotta. This approach has won the acceptance of the local ACLU chapter, and it largely resolves issues of expensive testing programs and many of the arguments about student privacy.