By Stephen Wallace, M.S. Ed.
President Bush's call for increased federal funding
of school drug testing programs has already reignited debate
over the efficacy and ethics of intrusive remedies for a
country at war with drugs. Given the easy availability of
illegal substances, and their widespread use by teens, it's
a debate worth watching.
Random drug testing in schools began
with student athletes and a "pay to play" philosophy
holding that participation in sports is a privilege extended
on the condition of abstinence from substance use. In a practice
upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, this privilege principle
quickly migrated to other competitive activities, from cheering
to chess. And now, in its latest iteration, drug testing
is being applied more broadly to students enrolled in some
private and parochial schools.
The current debate, anchored
on one side by conservatives and on the other by civil libertarians,
threads age-old arguments of privacy with newfangled applications
of technology poised to detect and designed to deter. In
the middle remain a vast number of "undecideds" and
the fundamental question of effectiveness. And here the data
conflict.
- University of Michigan researchers found
virtually identical rates of drug use in the schools that
have drug testing and the schools that do not (although
a study author concedes that one "could design a drug
testing program that could deter drug use").
- A
Ball State University/Indiana University researcher reported
that 73 percent of Indiana high school principals with
random drug testing programs in their schools reported
a decrease in drug usage (compared to a period without
such a program) among students subject to the policy.
Supporters of random
drug testing argue both the ethics (if we expect students
to study and test them to find out, can't we also expect
them to remain drug-free and test them to make sure?) and
the outcomes (the Office of National Drug Control Policy
cites the results of drug testing programs in Oregon and
New Jersey as proof positive that they work). They also note
the positive role that testing can play by giving young people "an
out," blunting negative peer pressure with the threat
of being caught. Not enforcement but, rather, reinforcement.
Detractors, on the other hand, claim that such programs
are ineffective as deterrents and fly in the face of civics
classes on the appropriate balance between authority and
individual rights.
In Making Sense of Student Drug Testing,
Why Educators are Saying No, the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) and the Drug Policy Alliance maintain that not
only is testing ineffective in deterring young people from
using drugs, it also can undermine relationships of trust
between adults and children. While that could be true, Teens
Today research from SADD and Liberty Mutual Group suggests
that the undermining may already be well underway: while
95 percent of parents say they trust their teens in making
decisions about drugs, only 28 percent of teens report being
completely honest with parents on the issue. And that says
nothing of the often elaborate steps teens will take to conceal,
not just lie about, their drug use.
In more than a few families,
evasion blends with obfuscation—commencing a high-stakes game
of Cat and Mouse that pits parents against teens and cripples
the very trust and truth on which those relationships are
based.
What seems to be lost in this debate is the perspective
of those with the most at stake: the students themselves.
Encouragingly, most teens (70 percent) say they are concerned
about drug use. Yet, understandably, many see drug testing
as a violation, not so much of civil liberties as much as
of trust—at least absent some evidence of wrongdoing.
They also seem to doubt its saliency as a deterrent, even
when applied by Mom or Dad. In one Teens
Today study, only
8 percent of students said that testing by parents would
be effective in keeping them away from drugs, while 93 percent
indicated that other parental measures would be effective.
The good news in all of this is that young people recognize
the dangers of drug use and seem to share adults' urgency
in finding answers that keep teens safe. The better news
is a solution that's been right in front of us all
along: parents who talk regularly with their children about
drugs.
According to Teens Today, adolescents in grades six
through twelve say that parents are their biggest influence
not to use drugs. And the methods they report as most effective
are, perhaps, the simplest: discuss the dangers and explain
the expectations. Indeed, teens who have open and honest
communication with their parents are more likely to avoid
drugs, to try to live up to their parents' expectations
regarding drug use, and to say that their parents' methods
of keeping them away from drugs are effective. These teens
also report that they are less likely to use drugs when their
parents make clear that such behavior won't be tolerated.
Whatever the outcome of the spirited public discourse over
random drug testing in schools, a surer bet may be some not-so-random
drug prevention at home. Open communication and clear expectations
are already proven deterrents to drug use among teens—just
ask them. So, too, is good old-fashioned vigilance. After
all, while the cat's away . . . .
© Summit Communications Management Corporation
2007
All Rights Reserved |
