Random Student Drug Testing

Suzanne Wills, Drug Policy Issues Chair

When the 2005-06 school year started, students in North Texas were without new textbooks and their access to guidance counselors was severely limited due to personnel cuts. Yet several local districts instituted suspicionless, random student drug testing at a cost of from $4,000 to $150,000.

Last spring the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the drug czar’s office, held “Regional Drug Testing Summits” in Dallas, Pittsburgh, Portland and St. Louis. The purpose of the Summits was to persuade school administrators to start student drug testing programs in their districts. I attended the Summit in Dallas.

The research study relied on by the Summit presenters was The SATURN Study (Student Athlete Testing Using Random Notification). This pilot study compared drug use at two similar schools--one where testing of athletes was done, one where it was not. Athletes at the tested school showed a small decrease in drug use at the end of the school year compared to the beginning. The control school showed an increase. These results were obtained from a questionnaire completed by consenting students. At the end of the school year students in the tested school had less positive feelings about school, felt more resistance to drug testing, had less belief in the testing results and less belief in the deterrent value of testing. Only 20% of students said that testing helped them resist drug use. The presenters never said how many students were involved in the study.

Opponents of student drug testing rely largely on the Monitoring the Future study, the largest study ever done. It was conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research between 1998 and 2001 and involved 76,000 students in the 8th, 10th and 12th grades. The study found no difference in drug use between students in schools where testing was done and schools where it was not.

Opponents also site experts who oppose testing including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the National Education Association and the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence. In response to a question about why these organizations opposed testing, David Evans, Esq., Executive Director of Drug Free Schools Coalition, responded that he would go to the physicians' groups and try to convince them that they were wrong. They must not have had all the information they needed. Then he said, "And the teachers opposed it because they were afraid they were next."

Proponents and opponents agree that testing lessens students’ expectation of privacy

later in life, but proponents see that as a positive outcome while opponents see it as a negative one.

Locally, the tragic suicide of Taylor Hooten is often cited as justification for random, suspicionless student drug testing. But, Taylor Hooten’s behavior was bizarre. No test was needed to see that he had serious problems. He should have been helped (in the school setting) by coaches, counselors, nurses and teachers. Ironically some of these are positions that are being cut because of lack of funding.