345646lo-res

Making

Sense of

Student

Drug

Testing

Why Educators

are Saying No

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:37 PM Page 1

For t

deve

these

healt

adul

The

Ame

litiga

the e

Ame

educ

agre

effec

This

testin

hope

amo

Making Sense of

Student Drug Testing

Why Educators are Saying No

January 2004

Written by Fatema Gunja, Alexandra Cox,

Marsha Rosenbaum, PhD and Judith Appel, JD

85 Willow Street

New Haven, CT 06511

www.aclu.org/drugpolicy

THE AMERICAN CIVIL

LIBERTIES UNION is the

nation’s premier guardian of

liberty, working daily in courts,

legislatures and communities

to defend and preserve the

individual rights and freedoms

guaranteed by the Constitution

and the laws of the United

States.

70 West 36th Street, 16th Floor

New York, NY 10018

www.drugpolicy.org

THE DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE

is the nation’s leading

organization working to end

the war on drugs and

promote new drug policies

based on science,

compassion, health, and

human rights.

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:37 PM Page 2

FOREWORD

For the safety and well being of young people, it is crucial to

develop programs that effectively address drug use. To succeed,

these programs must be grounded in research, compassion, and

health. They must also promote trust and honest dialogue between

adults and young people.

The authors of this booklet, the Drug Policy Alliance and the

American Civil Liberties Union, have analyzed, researched, and

litigated student drug testing for many years. We have listened to

the experts – from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the

American Public Health Association to hundreds of concerned

educators, parents, and students across the country. The experts

agree, and the evidence is clear: random drug testing does not

effectively reduce drug use among young people.

This booklet demonstrates the key flaws in random student drug

testing as well as the components of promising alternatives. We

hope it informs your decisions about how best to address drug use

among young people in your community.

Why Educators Are Saying No 1

Anthony D. Romero

Executive Director

American Civil Liberties Union

Ethan Nadelmann

Executive Director

Drug Policy Alliance

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:37 PM Page 1

Lar

The

no d

testin

betw

an im

Dr. L

the F

trend

Dr. J

impa

abou

their

Publ

was

fund

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Comprehensive, rigorous, and respected research shows that there

are many reasons why random student drug testing is not good

policy:

•Drug testing is not effective in deterring drug use among

young people;

•Drug testing is expensive, taking away scarce dollars

from other, more effective programs that keep young

people out of trouble with drugs;

•Drug testing can be legally risky, exposing schools to

potentially costly litigation;

•Drug testing may drive students away from extracurricu-

lar activities, which are a proven means of helping stu-

dents stay out of trouble with drugs;

•Drug testing can undermine relationships of trust

between students and teachers and between parents and

their children;

•Drug testing can result in false positives, leading to the

punishment of innocent students;

•Drug testing does not effectively identify students who

have serious problems with drugs; and

•Drug testing may lead to unintended consequences, such

as students using drugs that are more dangerous but less

detectable by a drug test, and learning the wrong lessons

about their constitutional rights.

There are alternatives to drug testing which emphasize edu-

cation, discussion, counseling, extracurricular activities, and

build trust between students and adults.

2 Making Sense of Student Drug Testing

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:37 PM Page 2

RANDOM DRUG TESTING DOES NOT

DETER DRUG USE

Largest National Study Shows Drug Testing Fails

The first large-scale national study on student drug testing found

no difference in rates of drug use between schools that have drug

testing programs and those that do not.

Based on data collected

between 1998 and 2001 from 76,000 students nationwide in 8

, and 12

grades, the study found that drug testing did not have

an impact on illicit drug use among students, including athletes.

Dr. Lloyd D. Johnston, an author of the study, directs Monitoring

the Future, the leading survey by the federal government of

trends in student drug use and attitudes about drugs. According to

Dr. Johnston, “[The study] suggests that there really isn’t an

impact from drug testing as practiced…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.”

Published in the April 2003 Journal of School Health, the study

was conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan and

funded in part by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

here

ong

cu-

uch

ess

ons

du-

Why Educators Are Saying No 3

Percentage of 12th Graders who Reported

Using Marijuana from the 2003 University

of Michigan Drug Testing Study

Illicit Drug Use

Among 12th Graders

in Schools With

& Without Drug Testing

Percentage of 12th Graders who Reported

Using an Illicit Drug (other than marijuana)

from the 2003 University of Michigan Drug

Testin

Stud

21%

19%

Schools

With

Student

Drug

Testing

Schools

Without

Student

Drug

Testing

Students

37%

36%

Schools

With

Student

Drug

Testing

Schools

Without

Student

Drug

Testing

Students

Marijuana Use

Among 12th Graders

in Schools With

& Without Drug Testing

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:37 PM Page 3

Ther

ing a

Edu

The

ers,

chos

The strongest predictor of student drug use, the study’s authors

note, is students’ attitudes toward drug use and their perceptions of

peer use. The authors recommend policies that address “these key

values, attitudes, and perceptions” as effective alternatives to drug

testing.

The results of the national study are supported by numer-

ous surveys and studies that examine the effectiveness of different

options for the prevention of student drug misuse.

Set against the evidence from this national study and expert opin-

ion, a handful of schools claim anecdotally that drug testing has

reduced drug use. The only formal study to claim a reduction in

drug use was based on a snapshot of six schools and was suspend-

ed by the federal government for lack of sound methodology.

4 Making Sense of Student Drug Testing

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:37 PM Page 4

WHO SAYS NO TO RANDOM

DRUG TESTING?

There has been a groundswell of opposition to random drug test-

ing among school officials, experts, parents, and state legislatures.

School Officials and Parents Say No to

Drug Testing

We stopped testing because “we didn’t think it was the

deterrent that we thought it would be…we didn’t think

it was as effective with the money we spent on it.”

– Scott Dahl, Vice President of School Board in Guymon, Oklahoma

We decided not to drug test because “it’s really a

parental responsibility…it is not our job to actually

test [students].”

– Harry M. Ward, Superintendent in Matthews County, Virginia

“The concerns of parents [in opposing a student

drug testing proposal] have ranged from the

budgetary issues to losing our focus on education

to creating a threatening environment.”

– Laura Rowe, President of Band Aids, parent association

of the HS band program in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin

“We object to the urine-testing policy as an unwar-

ranted invasion of privacy. We want schools to teach

our children to think critically, not to police them.”

– Hans York, Parent and Deputy Sheriff in Wahkiakum, Washington

“I would have liked to see healthy community

participation that stimulates thoughtful interaction

among us. Instead, this [drug testing] policy was

steamrolled into place, powered by mob thinking.”

– Jackie Puccetti, Parent in El Paso, Texas

Educators and School Officials

The majority of school officials – including administrators, teach-

ers, coaches, school counselors, and school board members – have

chosen not to implement drug testing programs. They object to

s of

mer-

rent

in-

nd-

Why Educators Are Saying No 5

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:37 PM Page 5

ing p

Acad

Ame

Soci

Drug

a bro

of [r

hope

soun

Par

Man

perso

that

drug

not s

Sta

In 20

after

conf

exam

drug

Loui

scho

drug testing for a variety of reasons, including the cost of testing,

the invasion of privacy, and even the unfair burden that student

drug testing places on schools, with their concerns rooted in

knowledge and experience about students. For many educators

and school officials, drug testing simply fails to reflect the reality

of what works to establish safe school environments.

Experts

“Social workers, concerned with a child’s well-

being, question whether [drug testing] will do

more harm than good…What is most effective in

keeping kids away from drugs and alcohol are

substance abuse prevention programs based on

scientific research.”

– Elizabeth J. Clark, PhD, ACSW, MPH

Executive Director of the National Association of Social Workers

In regards to drug testing, “what was once a tool to

help physicians diagnose and treat substance

abuse has been extended for non-medical uses…

This testing, however has been frequently

mistaken as the method, rather than as an aide, for

detecting substance abuse.”

– Policy Statement of the American Academy

of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

The Oklahoma policy “falls short doubly if deter-

rence is its aim: It invades the privacy of students

who need deterrence least, and risks steering

students at greater risk for substance abuse away

from extracurricular involvement that potentially

may palliate drug problems.”

– Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s

Dissenting Opinion in the Earls Decision

Physicians, social workers, substance abuse treatment providers,

and child advocates agree that student drug testing cannot

replace pragmatic drug prevention measures, such as after

school activities. Many prominent national organizations repre-

senting these groups have come forward and opposed drug test-

6 Making Sense of Student Drug Testing

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:38 PM Page 6

ing programs in court. These groups include the American

Academy of Pediatrics, the National Education Association, the

American Public Health Association, the National Association of

Social Workers, and the National Council on Alcoholism and

Drug Dependence. These experts stated: “Our experience – and

a broad body of relevant research – convinces us that a policy

of [random student drug testing] cannot work in the way it is

hoped to and will, for many adolescents, interfere with more

sound prevention and treatment processes.”

Parents

Many parents oppose drug testing for the same reasons as school

personnel and administrators. In addition, some parents believe

that schools are misappropriating their roles when they initiate

drug testing programs. They believe that it is the role of parents,

not schools, to make decisions about their children’s health.

State Governments

In 2003, several state legislatures opposed student drug testing

after hearing community and experts’ concerns about privacy,

confidentiality, potential liability, and overall effectiveness. For

example, the Hawaii legislature tabled a bill that would establish a

drug testing pilot program at several public high schools. In

Louisiana, a bill that would have mandated drug testing state

scholarship recipients was defeated.

Most Schools Say No to Drug Testing

A national survey of schools conducted six years

after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld drug testing

for school athletes found that:

• 95% of schools do not randomly drug test

student athletes.

• No public school district randomly drug tests

all of its students.

• None of the ten largest U.S. school systems

randomly drug test their students.

ng,

lity

ers,

re-

est-

Why Educators Are Saying No 7

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:38 PM Page 7

DRUG TESTING HAS A NEGATIVE

IMPACT ON THE CLASSROOM

Drug testing can undermine student-teacher relationships by

pitting students against the teachers and coaches who test

them, eroding trust, and leaving students feeling ashamed

and resentful.

As educators know, student-teacher trust helps create an

atmosphere in which students can address their fears and

concerns, both about drug use itself and the issues in their

lives that can lead to drug use, including depression, anxi-

ety, peer pressure, and unstable family lives. Trust is jeop-

ardized if teachers act as confidants in some circumstances

but as police in others.

8 Making Sense of Student Drug Testing

Drug

whic

dent

inclu

such

for p

Urin

Hai

Pat

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:38 PM Page 8

s by

xi-

ces

Why Educators Are Saying No 9

DRUG TESTING IS EXPENSIVE AND A

WASTE OF SCHOOL RESOURCES

Drug testing costs schools an average of $42 per student tested,

which amounts to $21,000 for a high school testing 500 stu-

dents.

This figure is for the initial test alone and does not

include the costs of other routine components of drug testing,

such as additional tests throughout the year or follow-up testing

for positive results.

Urine

Hair

Sweat

Patch

Marijuana

Cocaine

Opiates

Ampheta-

mines

PCP

Marijuana

Cocaine

Opiates

Ampheta-

mines

PCP

Marijuana

Cocaine

Opiates

Ampheta-

mines/

Meth.

PCP

Ecstasy

$10-

$30

per

test

$60-

$75

per

test

$20-

$30

per

test

•Tests commonly used in schools often do

not detect alcohol or tobacco

• Since marijuana stays in the body longer

than many other drugs, drugs like

cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines

are less likely to be detected

•Test is invasive and embarrassing

• Specimen can be adulterated

• Expensive

•Test limited to basic 5-drug panel

(cannot detect alcohol use)

• Will not detect very recent drug use

• The test is discriminatory: dark-haired

people are more likely to test positive than

blondes, and African-Americans are more

likely to test positive than Caucasians

• Passive exposure to drugs in the

environment, especially those that are

smoked, may lead to “innocent positive”

results

• Limited number of labs able to process

results

• Passive exposure to drugs may contami-

nate patch and result in false positives

• People with skin eruptions, excessive hair,

or cuts and abrasions cannot wear the

patch

Problems with Different Types of Tests

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:38 PM Page 9

Beyo

and

inclu

In 20

publ

tive,

rulin

also

for s

state

cour

hibit

of an

could

In m

Ohio

been

Man

paye

In la

rand

extra

that

vide

The cost of drug testing sometimes exceeds the total a school dis-

trict spends on existing drug education, prevention, and counsel-

ing programs. In fact, drug testing may actually take scarce

resources away from the health and treatment services necessary

for students who are misusing drugs – seriously undermining the

original purpose of the drug test.

The process for dealing with a positive test is usually long and

involved; not only must a second test be done to rule out a false-

positive result, but treatment referral and follow-up systems must

be in place. In one school district, the cost of detecting only 11

students who tested positive amounted to $35,000.

10 Making Sense of Student Drug Testing

Cost of program

# of Students

Cost per student

Drug Testing

$35,000 per school

year

Out of 1,473 students

tested, 11 tested

positive

$24 per student for

drug test

$3,200 per student

who tested positive

Substance Abuse Counselor

$32,000 annual starting salary

per counselor

Prevention programs for all

3,581 high school students

incorporated in a weekly class

curriculum

$18 per student for drug

prevention, education and

intervention

Intervention programs for all

targeted students who need

help

Cost-Benefit Analysis in Dublin, Ohio

In Dublin, Ohio, school administrators ended their drug testing program

and hired two full-time substance abuse counselors instead,

concluding that money allocated towards drug testing was diverting

more effective drug prevention resources.

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:38 PM Page 10

Beyond the initial costs, there are long term operational

and administrative costs associated with student drug testing,

including:

• Monitoring students’ urination to collect accurate

samples;

• Documentation, bookkeeping, and compliance with

confidentiality requirements; and

•Tort or other insurance to safeguard against potential

lawsuits.

NOT ALL DRUG TESTING IS

PROTECTED UNDER THE LAW

In 2002, by a margin of 5 to 4, the U.S. Supreme Court permitted

public school districts to drug test students participating in competi-

tive, extracurricular activities in the case Pottawatomie v. Earls. In its

ruling, however, the Court only interpreted federal law. Schools are

also subject to state laws – which may provide greater protections

for students’ privacy rights. These laws vary greatly from state to

state, and in many states, the law may not yet be well defined by the

courts. For instance, random drug testing programs in Iowa are pro-

hibited because the State Constitution forbids suspicionless searches

of any kind. An Iowa school district’s drug testing program, then,

could still be challenged under state law.

In many states, including Arkansas, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan,

Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and Washington, lawsuits have

been filed against school districts for their drug testing policies.

Many of these school districts spend years and thousands of tax-

payer dollars battling these lawsuits with no guarantee of success.

In late 2003, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania struck down the

random, suspicionless drug testing of student participants in

extracurricular activities and those with parking passes, finding

that this program violated the heightened privacy protections pro-

vided by the Pennsylvania constitution.

Why Educators Are Saying No 11

dis-

el-

ary

g the

se-

must

lor

ary

lass

all

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:38 PM Page 11

In ad

men

tact

tify a

One

conc

Distr

extra

fema

“I k

don

spo

they

test

reas

[act

med

alw

then

ask

emb

be t

A po

inno

urina

when

testin

that

RANDOM DRUG TESTING IS A

BARRIER TO JOINING EXTRA-

CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

Random drug testing is typically directed at students who want to

participate in extracurricular activities, including athletics. However,

drug testing policies may prevent some students from engaging in

these activities. Research shows the vastly disproportionate incidence

of adolescent drug use and other dangerous behavior occurs during

the unsupervised hours between the end of classes and parents’return

home in the evening.

Research also shows that students who participate in extracurricu-

lar activities are:

• Less likely to develop substance abuse problems;

• Less likely to engage in other dangerous behavior such as

violent crime; and

• More likely to stay in school, earn higher grades, and set –

and achieve – more ambitious educational goals.

12 Making Sense of Student Drug Testing

U.S. Supreme Court DID NOT Say...

•The Court DID NOT say that schools are required

to test students involved in competitive

extracurricular activities.

• The Court DID NOT say drug testing of all stu-

dents or specific groups of students outside of

those participating in competitive,

extracurricular activities (i.e. student drivers)

is constitutional.

• The Court DID NOT say it is constitutional to

drug test elementary school children.

• The Court DID NOT say that it is constitutional

to test by means other than urinalysis.

• The Court DID NOT say that schools are

protected from lawsuits under their respective

state laws.

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:38 PM Page 12

In addition, after school programs provide students who are experi-

menting with or misusing drugs with productive activities and con-

tact with a teacher, coach, or even a peer who can help them iden-

tify and address problematic drug use.

One of many school districts facing lawsuits regarding privacy

concerns and confidentiality, the Tulia Independent School

District has seen a dramatic reduction in student participation in

extracurricular activities since implementing drug testing.

One

female student explains:

“I know lots of kids who

don’t want to get into

sports and stuff because

they don’t want to get drug

tested. That’s one of the

reasons I’m not into any

[activity]. Cause…I’m on

medication, so I would

always test positive, and

then they would have to

ask me about my medication, and I would be

embarrassed. And what if I’m on my period? I would

be too embarrassed.”

DRUG TESTING RESULTS IN FALSE

POSITIVES THAT PUNISH INNOCENT

STUDENTS

A positive drug test can be a devastating accusation for an

innocent student. The most widely used drug screening method –

urinalysis – will falsely identify some students as illicit drug users

when they are not actually using illicit drugs at all, because drug

testing does not necessarily distinguish between drug metabolites

that have closely similar structures. For example:

ver,

ence

eturn

icu-

–

Why Educators Are Saying No 13

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:38 PM Page 13

In a

often

befo

cy ri

stud

•Over the counter decongestants may produce positive

results for amphetamine.

• Codeine can produce a positive result for heroin.

• The consumption of food products with poppy seeds can

produce a positive result for opiates.

Violating Confidentiality

When Tecumseh

High School in

Oklahoma enacted

its random drug

testing program,

the school failed

to ensure the

protection of private

information con-

cerning prescription

drug use submitted

under the testing

policy. The Choir

teacher, for

instance, looked at

students’ prescription drug lists and left them

where other students could see them. The

results of a positive test, too, were disseminated

to as many as 13 faculty members at a time.

Other students figured out the results when a

student suddenly was suspended from his/her

activity shortly after the administration of a drug

test.

This not only violates students’ privacy

rights, but can also lead to costly litigation.

14 Making Sense of Student Drug Testing

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:38 PM Page 14

In a desire to eliminate the possibility for false positives, schools

often ask students to identify their prescription medications

before taking a drug test. This both compromises students’ priva-

cy rights and creates an added burden for schools to ensure that

students’ private information is safely guarded.

What National Experts Said to the U.S.

Supreme Court

A mandatory drug testing policy “injects the school

and its personnel, unnecessarily, into a realm

where parental and medical judgment should be

preeminent.”

– American Academy of Pediatrics, et al.

School drug testing policies often operate “in dis-

regard for prevention and treatment principles

that doctors and substance abuse experts view as

fundamental…”

– American Public Health Association, et al.

“There is growing recognition that extracurricular

involvement plays a role in protecting students

from substance abuse and other dangerous health

behaviors.”

– National Education Association, et al.

The risk that testing students for illicit drugs “will

be understood to signal that alcohol and tobacco

are of less danger is not an idle concern.”

– National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, et al.

can

Why Educators Are Saying No 15

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:38 PM Page 15

Stud

are g

inno

Stud

unde

Con

presu

prov

they

expe

Rand

unde

stud

guilt

duce

ple,

given

DRUG TESTING IS NOT THE BEST

WAY TO IDENTIFY STUDENTS WITH A

DRUG PROBLEM

Drug testing says very little about who is misusing or abusing

drugs. Hundreds or even thousands of students might be tested in

order to detect a tiny fraction of students who may have used the

drugs covered by the test. Additionally, students misusing other

harmful substances not detected by drug tests will not be identi-

fied. If schools rely on drug testing, they may undervalue better

ways of detecting young people who are having problems with

drugs. Most often, problematic drug use is discovered by learning

to recognize its common symptoms. Teachers, coaches, and other

school officials can identify students with a drug problem by pay-

ing attention to such signs as student absences, erratic behavior,

changes in grades, and withdrawal from peers.

DRUG TESTING HAS UNINTENDED

CONSEQUENCES

Students may turn to more dangerous drugs or binge drinking.

Because marijuana is the most detectable drug, students may

switch to drugs they think the test will not detect, like Ecstasy

(MDMA) or inhalants. Knowing alcohol is less detectable, they

may also engage in binge drinking, creating greater health and

safety risks for students and the community as a whole.

Students can outsmart the drug test.

Students who fear being caught by a drug test may find ways to

cheat the test, often by purchasing products on the internet. A quick

search on the Internet for “passing a drug test” yields over 8,000

hits, linking students to web sites selling drug-free replacement

urine, herbal detoxifiers, hair follicle shampoo, and other products

designed to beat the drug test. In addition, a new subculture of stu-

dents might emerge that makes a mockery of the drug testing pro-

gram. For example, in one school district in Louisiana, students

who were facing a hair test shaved their heads and body hair.

16 Making Sense of Student Drug Testing

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:38 PM Page 16

Students learn that they

are guilty until proven

innocent.

Students are taught that

under the U.S.

Constitution, people are

presumed innocent until

proven guilty and that

they have a reasonable

expectation of privacy.

Random drug testing

undermines both lessons;

students are assumed

guilty until they can pro-

duce a clean urine sam-

ple, with little regard

given to students’ privacy rights.

First, Ask These Hard Questions

• Has the drug test been proven to identify stu-

dents likely to have future problems and to

clear those who will not?

• Have schools been proven to be more cost

effective places to perform these tests than a

doctor’s office?

•Are resources in place to assist students who

“fail” the test, regardless of health insurance

status or parental income?

• Is the financial interest of a drug testing com-

pany behind the test’s promotion?

• Is school staff using precious time to elicit

parental permission, explain the test, make

the referrals, and assure follow-up?

Adapted from the American Association of School Administrators

web site

d in

the

ti-

ning

her

pay-

or,

uick

cts

stu-

ro-

Why Educators Are Saying No 17

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:38 PM Page 17

who

with

Allo

Hea

Scho

play

treat

ques

nosin

Enc

Infor

misu

enco

ly co

midd

versa

from

Cul

and

Trus

relat

their

bility

bly. T

wher

The

that

ALTERNATIVES TO STUDENT

DRUG TESTING

The current push to increase drug testing comes from the drug

testing industry, but also from well-intentioned educators and

parents frustrated by the lack of success of drug prevention pro-

grams such as Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE).

However, there are more effective ways to keep teens out of trou-

ble with drugs.

Engage Students in After School Programs

Schools and local communities should help engage students in

extracurricular activities and athletics since these are among the

best deterrents for drug misuse.

Incorporate Reality-Based Drug Education Into

the School Curriculum

Drugs of all sorts abound in our society. We are constantly con-

fronted with a wide variety of substances that have recreational

and medicinal uses and that can be purchased over the counter, by

prescription, and illegally. Since decisions to use drugs of all kinds

is ongoing, quality drug education should be incorporated into a

broad range of science classes, including physiology, chemistry,

and biology, as well as psychology, history, and sociology. Drug

education should avoid dishonest scare tactics, and it should also

recognize the wide spectrum of drug use and misuse, and the rea-

sons why young people might choose to use (or not use) drugs.

Provide Counseling

Schools should provide counseling for students who are using

drugs in a way that is causing harm to themselves or others. An

emerging model, which stresses relationships between students

and counselors, is that of a comprehensive Student Assistance

Program (SAP)

. Both prevention education and intervention

can occur in such a program. Counselors who teach about drugs

can remain an important resource for students after the formal

session ends. Trained student counselors can engage students

18 Making Sense of Student Drug Testing

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:38 PM Page 18

who may feel more comfortable talking about their problems

with their peers.

Allow Students to be Assessed and Treated by

Health Care Professionals

Schools can refer students to health care professionals who can

play a role in screening, intervening, and referring adolescents to

treatment. Several screening tools, other than urinalysis, such as

questionnaires, are available to health care professionals in diag-

nosing drug abuse among adolescents.

Encourage Parents to Become Better Informed

Informed parents play a key role in preventing and detecting drug

misuse, so they should learn as much as they can. Schools can

encourage parents to open a dialogue when adolescents are actual-

ly confronted with alcohol and other intoxicating drugs, usually in

middle school. At this point, “drug talks” should be two-way con-

versations. It is important for parents to teach as well as learn

from their children.

Cultivate Trust and Respect Among Students

and Adults

Trust and respect are perhaps the most important elements of a

relationship with teens. Young people who have the confidence of

their parents and teachers, and are expected to assume responsi-

bility for their actions, are the most likely, in turn, to act responsi-

bly. They need to practice responsibility while still in high school

where they have a parental and school “safety net.”

The combination of these methods will help ensure

that students:

1) Receive comprehensive, science-based

information;

2) Receive help when they need it; and

3) Stay busy and involved in productive activities when

the school day ends.

Why Educators Are Saying No 19

ro-

rou-

nto

inds

ea-

nts

ugs

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:38 PM Page 19

“Larr

Sche

This

ing p

and o

http:/

“Teac

adap

stude

discu

http:/

Rec

“Dru

and o

ing le

safet

that k

“A Te

drug

other

RESOURCES

Studies on Students, Drug Testing, and/or

After School Activities

Ryoko Yamaguchi, Lloyd D. Johnston, Patrick M. O’Malley,

“Relationship Between Student Illicit Drug use and School Drug Testing

Policies,” Journal of School Health 73-4 (2003): 159-64. Available at:

http://www

.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/text/ryldjpom03.pdf

Robert Taylor, “Compensating Behavior and the Drug Testing of High

School Athletes,”The Cato Journal 16-3 (1997). Available at:

http://www

.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n3-5.html

William J. Bailey, M.P.H., C.P.P, “Suspicionless Drug Testing in Schools,”

Current Issues in Drug Abuse Prevention (1998). Available at:

http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/issues/suspicionless.html

U.S. Department of Justice, “Safe and Smart: Making After-School Hours

Work for Kids” (1998). Available at:

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/SafeandSmar

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Adolescent Time Use,

Risky Behaviors and Outcomes”(1995). Available at:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/cyp/xstimuse.htm

Recommended Reading and Viewing

Andrew Weil, M.D. and Winifred Rosen, F

rom Chocolate to Morphine:

Everything You Need to Know About Mind-Altering Drugs, (Boston:

Houghton Mifflin, 1998).

Marsha Rosenbaum, Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens,

Drugs and Drug Education, (San Francisco: Drug Policy Alliance,

2002). This 17-page booklet provides parents and educators with prag-

matic ways to address teenage drug use. It is available in hard copy or at

http://www

.safety1st.org in English, Spanish, Russian, and Hebrew.

Friend-of-the-Court brief of the American Academy of Pediatrics, et al. in

Support of Lindsay Earls, for Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002). Available at:

http://www

.drugtestingfails.org/pdf/amicus_brief.pdf

20 Making Sense of Student Drug Testing

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:38 PM Page 20

“Larry v. Lockney,” writers and directors Mark Birnbaum and Jim

Schermbeck, Public Broadcasting System, 1 July 2003.

This is a documentary about a parent’s fight against a student drug test-

ing program in his son’s school, and the web site includes lesson plans

and other related resources. Available at:

http://www

.pbs.org/pov/pov2003/larryvlockney/index.html

“Teaching about Drug Testing in Schools,” American Bar Association,

adapted from Street Law, Inc (1999). This is a lesson plan that educates

students about drug testing in schools and allows them to consider and

discuss the consequences of a student drug testing policy. Available at:

http://www

.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/schools/lessons/hs_drugs.html

Recommended Web Sites

“Drug Testing Fails” provides resources for parents, educators, coaches,

and other interested and concerned adults who believe that safe and trust-

ing learning environments are critical to our young people’s health and

safety, and that student drug testing programs get in the way of creating

that kind of environment. Available at: http://www.drugtestingfails.org

“A Test You Can’t Study For” is a special ACLU web feature on student

drug testing that includes a guide for students, fact sheets, reports, and

other materials. Available at: http://www

.aclu.org/DrugPolicy

Why Educators Are Saying No 21

ting

ols,”

Hours

Use,

ne:

r at

al. in

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:38 PM Page 21

12 “

13 B

14 B

15 R

16 F

17 R

18 “

19 “

20 T

21 U

22 M

23 P

ENDNOTES

1Ryoko Yamaguchi, Lloyd D. Johnston, Patrick M. O’Malley, “Relationship

Between Student Illicit Drug Use and School Drug Testing Policies,” Journal

of School Health 73.4 (2003): 159-64.

2 Greg Winter, “Study Finds No Sign That Testing Deters Students’ Drug Use,”

New York Times 17 May 2003.

3“ACLU Says First National Study on Student Drug Testing Confirms Policy is

Ineffective as Well as Unconstitutional,” ACLU Press Release 19 May 2003.

Available online at: http://www

.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/

ugPolicy

.cfm?ID=12655&c=79 (last checked 11 August 2003).

4 See, for example: U.S. Public Health Service, “Adolescent Time Use, Risky

Behaviors and Outcomes” (1995); L. Shilts, “The Relationship of Early

Adolescent Substance Use to Extracurricular Activities, Peer Influence, and

Personal Attitude,” Adolescence 26 (Fall 1991): 613, 615; WJ Bailey,

“Suspicionless drug testing in schools,” available online at:

http://www

.drugs.indiana.edu/issues/suspicionless.html (last checked 11

August 2003); and Robert Taylor, “Compensating behavior and the drug testing

of high school athletes,” The Cato Journal 16.3 (1997). Available online at:

http://www

.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n3.html

(last checked 11 August 2003).

5 Linn Goldberg, the author of the study suspended by federal authorities, now

agrees that “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.’” Greg Winter, “Study Finds No Sign That

Testing Deters Students’ Drug Use,” New York Times 17 May 2003

6 Jessica Raynor, “Guymon to eliminate drug program,” Amarillo Globe-News

Online 15 August 2002.

7 Andrew Petofsky, “School scraps drug testing; but Mathews will make kits

available,” Richmond Times Dispatch 27 July 2002.

8Kay Nolan, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “District drops random drug testing

plan; Proposal for Oconomowoc schools lacks parents’ support,” 22 October

2003.

9“First Lawsuit Filed Challenging Suspicionless Student Urine-Testing in

Washington,” ACLU of Washington Press Release 19 December 1999.

Available online at: http://www.aclu-wa.org/issues/students/Drug-Testing.html

(last checked 11 August 2003).

10 “An Open Letter from a Concerned Parent,” ACLU/DPLP Web Site, Jackie

Puccetti, 6 May 2003. Available online at:

http://www

.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicy.cfm?ID=12534&c=79 (last

checked 11 August 2003).

11 “Social Workers Disagree With Supreme Court Decision to Test Students for

Drug Use,” National Association of Social Workers Web Site. Available online

at: http://www.socialworkers.org/pressroom/2002/062702.asp (last checked 11

22 Making Sense of Student Drug Testing

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:38 PM Page 22

August 2003).

12 “Policy Statement: Drug and Alcohol Screening,” American Academy of Child

and Adolescent Psychiatry Web Site. Available online at:

http://www

.aacap.org/pub

lications/policy/ps21.htm#TOP

17 July 2003.

13 Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie

County v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002) (Ginsberg, R., dissenting).

14 Brief of Amici Curiae at 1, Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002). Available online at:

http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicy

.cfm?ID=11238&c=79 (last

checked 11 August 2003).

15 Ryoko Yamaguchi, Lloyd D. Johnston, Patrick M. O‚Malley, “Relationship

Between Student Illicit Drug Use and School Drug Testing Policies,” Journal

of School Health 73.4 (2003): 160 Table 1.

16 Forensic Drug Abuse Advisor 8.10 (Nov/Dec 1996); Forensic Drug Abuse

Advisor 9.4 (April 1997) and Drug Testing Fails Web site. Available online at:

http://www.drugtestingfails.com/costs (last checked 11 August 2003).

17 Robert L. DuPont, M.D., Teresa G. Campbell, Ph. D., and Jacqueline J.

Mazza, “Report of a Preliminary Study: Elements of a Successful School-

Based Student Drug Testing Program,” United States Department of

Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Safe and Drug-

Free Schools Program (July 2002).

18 “Student Drug Testing: An Investment in Fear,” Drug Policy Alliance Web Site.

Available online at: http://www

.drugtestingfails.org/costs.html (last checked

11 August 2003). Also phone conversation with Dublin, Ohio High Schools’

Guidance Department, July 2003.

19 “ACLU Drug Testing Cases Across the Nation,” American Civil Liberties

Union Fact Sheet 15 March 2002. Available online at:

http://www

.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicy.cfm?ID=11001&c=79 (last

checked 11 August 2003).

20 Theodore v. Delaware Valley School District., A.2d, 2003 WL 22736535 (Pa.

20, 2003).

21 U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice, “‘Safe and

Smart’: Making After-School Hours Work for Kids,” (1998).

22 Maureen Glancy, F. K. Willits and Patricia Farrell, “Adolescent Activities and

Adult Success and Happiness: Twenty-four years later,” Sociology and Social

Research 70.3 (1986): 242.

23 Plaintiffs in the lawsuit Bean v. Tulia Independent School District, No. 2-

01CV-0394J (D. Tex. filed February 18, 2003) claim that, “In 1990-1991 par-

ticipation of black seniors was 100% in extracurricular clubs and activities

and 100% in sports; while the 2000-2001 participation rates [after student

drug testing] of black seniors fell to 0% within both.” Affidavit of Nancy

Cozette Bean, p.3.

Why Educators Are Saying No 23

rnal

Use,”

icy is

03.

esting

03).

now

en to

gery

hat

ews

ting

ber

html

for

nline

ed 11

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:38 PM Page 23

24 Ibid., p.4.

25 American Civil Liberties Union, “Drug Testing: A Bad Investment” (1999).

Available online at:

http://www

.aclu.org/Dr

ugPolicy/Dr

ugPolicy.cfm?ID=9218&c=79 (last

checked 11 August 2003).

26 Ibid.

27 C. Meadway, S. George, and R. Braithwaite, “Opiate concentrations following

the ingestion of poppy seed products – evidence for ‘the poppy seed

defense,’” Forensic Science International 96.1 (1998): 29-38.

28 Brief of Respondents at 3, Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002).

29 These statements come from the Brief of Amici Curiae of the American

Academy of Pediatrics, National Education Association, American Public

Health Association, National Association of Social Workers, NASW-

Oklahoma Chapter, National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence,

Center for Law and Education, Loyola Child Law Center, and Lawyers for

Children, Inc., filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002).

Available online at: http://www

.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=11237 (last

checked 11 August 2003).

30 Rob Nelson, “Jeff schools trim drug test loophole; Hair Samples will be

required by policy,” The Times Picayune 11 July 2003.

31 Howard Taras, “Maximizing Student Health Resources,” The School

Administrator Web Edition January 2003. Available online at:

http://www

.aasa.org/publications/sa/2003_01/Cooper_Taras.htm (last checked

11 August 2003).

32 U.S. General Accounting Office, “Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention: DARE

Long-Term Evaluations and Federal Efforts to Identify Effective Programs,”

15 January 2003.

33 Student Assistance Programs (SAPs) are comprehensive models for the deliv-

ery of K-12 prevention, intervention, and support services. SAPs are designed

to reduce student risk factors, promote protective factors, and increase person-

al development and decision-making skills by students. For information about

developing SAPs, see the National Association of Student Assistant

Professionals web site at: www

.nasap.org or call 1-800-257-6310.

34 Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy, “Adolescent Substance Abuse:

A Public Health Priority,” Prevention Brochure 23 (19 August 2002).

Available online at: http://www.nida.nih.gov/prevention/

PREVOPEN.htm.These tools include the Personal Experience Inventory

(PEI), Drug Abuse Screening Test for Adolescents (DAST-A), and Adolescent

Drug Involvement Scale (ADIS), among others.

24 Making Sense of Student Drug Testing

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:38 PM Page 24

Why Educators Are Saying No 25

9).

wing

ce,

002).

ast

cked

ms,”

eliv-

gned

rson-

about

buse:

scent

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:38 PM Page 25

26 Making Sense of Student Drug Testing

“AS A PEDIATRICIAN who works closely with schools, I know I can help

students do their best when I believe in them and boost their strengths.

I also know that school superintendents and principals want what is

best and safest for their students. Random drug testing can seriously

erode the trust that needs to exist between youth and important adults

in their lives. This booklet will help school officials make an informed

decision about random drug testing.”

– Barbara Frankowski, MD, MPH

Professor of Pediatrics

University of Vermont College of Medicine

“THIS SMART, WELL-REASONED booklet provides educators with the

information they need to make responsible decisions about student drug

testing. I highly recommend it to teachers, parents, administrators, and

school board members.”

– The Honorable John Vasconcellos

Chair, Education Committee

California State Senate

“MAKING CORRECT DECISIONS about how to keep students safe is crit-

ical, and we always need all the help we can get. This booklet is a thor-

ough review of drug testing in schools and highlights many valid con-

cerns. All should read it before establishing any school drug policy. I

would have welcomed this booklet when I was a teacher, supervisor,

and superintendent.”

– Warren A. Stewart, EdD

retired Superintendent of Goochland County

Public Schools, Virginia

“THIS IS A CLEAR, LUCID ANALYSIS of random drug testing. It makes a

strong case that random drug testing is likely to do more harm than

good. It deserves wide distribution to parents, teachers, students and

social workers.”

– Milton Friedman, PhD

Senior Research Fellow, Nobel Prize for

Economics, Hoover Institution, Stanford University

“WHILE STUDENT DRUG TESTING may seem a panacea, the reasoned

ideas contained in this booklet amply demonstrate its pitfalls. As an

educator, I would urge school decision-makers to read ‘Making Sense of

Student Drug Testing: Why Educators are Saying No’ and tread carefully

and skeptically before embarking on this misguided policy.”

– Rodney Skager, PhD

Professor Emeritus, Graduate School of Education,

University of California, Los Angeles

345646lo-res 12/17/03 6:38 PM Page 26