« Police say the grow op is linked to organized crime | Main | Key p-word here isn’t pot, but persecution »
Drug testing students proven to be expensive and ineffective
By Hempology | February 7, 2008
The Signal, CA
04 Feb 2008
Sean Herron
SCHOOL DRUG-TESTING PLAN INEFFECTIVE, BREAKS TRUST WITH ADULTS
The William S. Hart Union High School District Governing Board is set to consider one of the most controversial issues in education today – the random testing of students for the presence of drugs.
If adopted, mandatory random drug testing would force students in extracurricular activities into a pool of possible candidates for a random drug test – regardless of parental consent.
This is all possible under a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing public schools the authority to test students in extracurricular activities for drugs, providing that they can prove a significant drug problem exists in their district.
But, is requiring high school students to submit to a medical procedure just so they can be involved with their school really necessary?
Should we allow the government a power normally reserved for parents?
My answer is no.
Mandatory random drug testing has been proven time after time to be an ineffective way to deter students from drugs, all while costing the district tens of thousands of dollars per year, driving students away from extracurriculars, and most significantly, creating a climate of fear and distrust between students and faculty in our schools.
A 2003 University of Michigan study of both schools that drug test students and those that don’t found schools with student drug testing had a higher percentage of students who used illicit drugs than at schools who don’t. Why? Because drug testing is, at its core, ineffective. Rather than prompting students to quit drugs altogether, drug testing drives them to more serious drugs that leave the body quickly, such as methamphetamines, Ecstasy or inhalants.
Even worse, since many of the tests don’t look for alcohol, drug testing could result in students turning to binge drinking, something in our community that has killed far more young lives than marijuana. Additionally, drug testing could push some students to quit the activities at school that they are involved with. For many, these activities keep them from going further in their drug habits.
Is it really wise to motivate students to spend more time away from school, potentially doing the very thing this system is meant to prevent?
Apart from being ineffective, the program is expensive.
Testing 1,200 high school students per year ( approximately 5 percent of students ) will cost the district up to $62,400. That, of course, doesn’t include the cost of lawsuits against the district that are bound to come. That money has to come from somewhere, and may very well end up taking away resources from programs which have been proven to be effective in deterring youth from drugs.
With the current budget cuts facing our state, I don’t believe investing more than $60,000 a year on a program that, statistically, has no effect on students is a good idea.
Perhaps the most frightening effect of the program, however, will be the relationship it creates between students and faculty.
Many students find their teacher or counselor as one of the only people whom they can confide in. How does the district expect students to feel comfortable asking for help or guidance if the only people whom they can talk to are the ones administering the tests?
Although the tests are randomly assigned, students will fear that their plea for help could result in them being chosen to be tested, instantly destroying the delicate bond many students currently share with their teachers.
Finally, in order to institute a Mandatory Random Drug Testing system, a school district must prove that there is a significant drug problem in the community. While I don’t believe anyone will say drugs are not an issue in the Santa Clarita Valley, saying they are significant, in legal context at least, is simply untrue.
The school environment which prompted the ruling allowing drug testing in schools was listed, in the case, as follows:
“[T]he administration was at its wits end and … a large segment of the student body, particularly those involved in interscholastic athletics, was in a state of rebellion.
Disciplinary actions had reached ‘epidemic proportions.’” ( Earls v. Board of Education of Tecumseh Public School District ).
I don’t know about you, but if a “state of rebellion” exists inside the Hart district, it’s news to me. In fact, a study conducted by the district itself shows that less than 1 percent of 7-12th graders were suspended for drug offenses in the 2006-2007 school year. One percent is far from the “epidemic proportions” of disciplinary actions described in the case.
For the past few months, the district has assembled a committee of school administrators, teachers, law enforcement, parents and students to discuss all of the above issues and more. When the report was released during last Wednesday’s board meeting, the information it contained was overwhelmingly negative against testing.
Law enforcement believes that the “typical” youth involved with drugs are “not involved in school’s extracurricular programs.” Coaches believe that testing “will not change bad practices” and that “students [are] likely to re-engage in abuse at the end of the season,” and school administrators believe that “testing … is potentially divisive” and that the results “wouldn’t truly be confidential, as students [would] disappear from teams or groups.” The response from parents also is negative, showing concerns for discrimination against students whose religion prevents them from surrendering bodily fluids and the confidentiality of private student information.
As a student in the Hart district, the prospect of being forced to undergo a potentially invasive procedure just to participate in school activities is frightening. I’ve talked to dozens of other students from across the district, and an overwhelming majority are strongly opposed to this program. I don’t feel it is either the responsibility or right of the school district to monitor what I do on my own time. Although I have always been and will continue to be drug free, I worry about the possibility of a false-positive result. A positive drug test is a devastating accusation, especially for an innocent student.
The possibility of a false positive through urinalysis is extremely high, as many tests see innocuous items such as over-the-counter decongestants, codeine and even poppy seeds as amphetamines, heroin or opiates. To try and combat this, many school districts require students to identify prescription medications they are taking before the test is administered, resulting in even more violations of a student’s medical privacy and creating addition burden for the district in order to ensure such private information is kept confidential.
I strongly believe that drug testing is something to be discussed between a student, his or her parents, and their doctor.
Therefore, I suggest that, if the district is to implement a drug testing policy, they make it an “opt-in” program, where parents can decide if their child is to be tested or not. Besides making testing available to every family in the district, an opt-in program would eliminate any legal hurdles the district will encounter with mandatory testing, and allow parents who don’t want their student tested to still give their child the option of staying active in their school.
In closing, although mandatory drug testing may seem to be a good idea to deter students from illicit drugs, the reality is that it is an ineffective program that will not provide the results hoped for, and may further deteriorate the relationships shared between students and faculty.
As a student, I feel that the trust I’ve received from my parents, peers, and teachers is far more effective in deterring me from drugs than any mandatory random test ever will be.
Topics: Articles | Comments Off
Comments are closed.