STUDY FINDS NO SIGN THAT TESTING DETERS STUDENTS' DRUG USE

Drug testing in schools does not deter student drug use any more than doing
no screening at all, the first large-scale national study on the subject
has found.

The United States Supreme Court has twice empowered schools to test for
drugs - first among student athletes in 1995, then for those in other
extracurricular activities last year. Both times, it cited the role that
screening plays in combating substance abuse as a rationale for impinging
on whatever privacy rights students might have.

But the new federally financed study of 76,000 students nationwide, by far
the largest to date, found that drug use is just as common in schools with
testing as in those without it.

"It suggests that there really isn't an impact from drug testing as
practiced," Dr. Lloyd D. Johnston, a study researcher from the University
of Michigan, said. "It's the kind of intervention that doesn't win the
hearts and minds of children. I don't think it brings about any
constructive changes in their attitudes about drugs or their belief in the
dangers associated with using them."

The prevalence of drug use in schools that tested for drugs and those that
did not was so similar that it surprised the researchers, who have been
paid by the government to track student behavior for nearly 30 years and
whose data on drug use is considered highly reliable.

The study, published last month in The Journal of School Health, a
peer-reviewed publication of the American School Health Association, found
that 37 percent of 12th graders in schools that tested for drugs said they
had smoked marijuana in the last year, compared with 36 percent in schools
that did not. In a universe of tens of thousands of students, such a slight
deviation is statistically insignificant, and it means the results are
essentially identical, the researchers said.

Similarly, 21 percent of 12th graders in schools with testing said they had
used other illicit drugs like cocaine or heroin in the last year, while 19
percent of their counterparts in schools without screening said they had
done so.

The same pattern held for every other drug and grade level. Whether looking
at marijuana or harder drugs like cocaine and heroin, or middle school
pupils compared with high school students, the fact that their schools
tested for drugs showed no signs of slowing their drug use.

While it is possible that schools that imposed screening had had even
higher rates of use before, the researchers said that was extremely
unlikely because they controlled for behavioral factors normally associated
with substance abuse like truancy and parental absence.

"Obviously, the justices did not have the benefit of this study," said
Graham Boyd, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the
case against drug testing before the Supreme Court last year. "Now there
should be no reason for a school to impose an intrusive or even insulting
drug test when it's not going to do anything about student drug use."

But other researchers contend that the urinalysis conducted by schools is
so faulty, the supervision so lax and the opportunities for cheating so
plentiful that the study may prove only that schools do a poor job of testing.

"That's like blaming antibiotics if you didn't take them properly, or
blaming the doctor who prescribed them," said Dr. Linn Goldberg, a
professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University, who
conducted a much more limited study on two Oregon high schools last year.
It found that intensive, Olympic-grade testing could reduce drug use.

Still, Dr. Goldberg argued, even his study did not prove that testing
limits consumption. "Schools should not implement a drug testing program
until they're proven to work," he added. "They're too expensive. It's like
having experimental surgery that's never been shown to work."

Most schools have shied away from drug testing. The Michigan study found
that only 18 percent of the nation's schools did any kind of screening from
1998 to 2001, most of them high schools. While a broad swath of the school
population may be screened, from honor students in extracurricular
activities to students on probation, most of the testing focuses on those
who are suspected of using drugs.

Such tests do not violate the Fourth Amendment safeguards against
unreasonable searches and seizures, the Supreme Court has ruled, because
children have limited expectations of privacy, the tests are not overly
intrusive and because they are likely to deter substance abuse. Writing for
the court in 1995, Justice Antonin Scalia described the "efficacy of this
means for addressing the problem" of student drug use as "self-evident."

Seven years later, Justice Clarence Thomas restated the court's opinion,
ruling that "the need to prevent and deter the substantial harm of
childhood drug use provides the necessary immediacy for a school testing
policy."

Though the study may call those presumptions into question, it does not
mean that drug testing is any less constitutional, said the National School
Boards Association, which filed legal briefs in support of testing to the
court. Given the other constitutional grounds for testing elaborated by the
justices, particularly the role of schools as guardians of their students'
well-being, the association maintains that schools should continue to test,
if they so choose.

"I'm not saying school districts should ignore that study," Naomi Gittins,
an association lawyer, said. "I think it's a good idea that schools take a
look at that study. It's an important decision that they're making."

The study would not have swayed Randall Aultman, former principal of tiny
Vernonia High School in Oregon whose decision to screen its athletes led to
the Supreme Court's 1995 ruling. Drug use was so rampant among his students
that he says "we had to do something drastic," without even knowing whether
it was legal, much less effective.

"I don't think that drug testing works all the time, in all situations,"
Mr. Aultman said. "And the truth is there were many kids who said, 'Yeah,
we quit while we were in season and once the season was over we went back
to using drugs.' "

Even so, Mr. Aultman added, other students quit for life, and "at that
time, it really worked."

The Michigan study was financed by grants from the National Institute on
Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health, as well as the
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which supports drug testing in schools. It
collected data on testing policies at 722 middle and high schools, and drew
on anonymous surveys from 30,000 8th graders, 23,000 10th graders and
23,000 12th graders, an enormous statistical undertaking that may not be
matched for years. The researchers assume that some will lie about their
drug use, but say that the effects are insignificant.

There is at least one important limitation of the Michigan study. It does
not differentiate between schools that do intensive, regular random
screening and those that test only occasionally. As a result, it does not
rule out the possibility that the most vigilant schools do a better job of
curbing drug use.

"One could imagine situations where drug testing could be effective, if you
impose it in a sufficiently draconian manner - that is, testing most kids
and doing it frequently," Dr. Johnston, the Michigan researcher, said.
"We're not in a position to say that wouldn't work."

The Supreme Court, however, has not ruled on whether testing all students,
even those not in extracurricular activities, is constitutional.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse said it would take several more such
studies before any certainty about the efficacy of testing can be
established. More research is being explored, it said, but the results are
probably years away.

Even so, some took the study as proof that education is the most effective
weapon against substance abuse. They said that while screening may give
rise to a culture of resistance, in which students take pride in beating
the test, the best results come from convincing children that most children
do not use drugs, making drugs less appealing.

"At best, testing could be a band-aid, and certainly not an answer," Tom
Hedrick, director and founding member of the Partnership for a Drug-Free
America, said.