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.