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.