Random Drug Testing in Schools

Random drug testing in schools is a method implemented to deter substance abuse among students by conducting unannounced tests for drugs. This approach has gained traction as a potential complement to traditional educational initiatives aimed at prevention, particularly in response to rising concerns about adolescent drug use. Proponents argue that random drug testing serves as a strong deterrent against peer pressure, helping students navigate the challenges of drug temptation. However, the practice is highly controversial and faces criticism for being invasive, costly, and statistically unproven in its effectiveness.

Key stakeholders in the debate include students, school officials, parents, healthcare providers, and government entities, all of whom bring diverse perspectives on its implications for privacy, health, and social responsibility. Critics point out that existing studies offer insufficient evidence to validate the effectiveness of random drug testing as a standalone solution, and they highlight issues such as false positives and the emotional toll on students subjected to testing. Additionally, discussions around random drug testing often intersect with broader themes of personal autonomy, public health, and the role of government in education. Overall, while random drug testing aims to combat drug use, the efficacy and ethical implications of such measures remain subjects of ongoing debate.

Published in: 2021

By: Sprague, Nancy

Subject Terms

Random Drug Testing in Schools

Abstract

This essay discusses random drug testing in schools. A brief introduction is followed by an expanded discussion on the positions of key stakeholders whose interests include economics, sports, academics, societal relationships, health care, the law, and the workplace. This article reveals that there are limitations to drug testing capability and room for detrimental errors. Finally, the author addresses how governmental support for robust drug prevention in children and adolescents has been a priority, but conclusions drawn and resultant policy-setting may be based more on anecdote than on statistically-qualified research

Overview

The ideal time to focus on drug abuse prevention initiatives for teens is before peer pressure and experimentation begin. Education and awareness starts at home, in school, and for many, in other community or religious organizations. Lessons on drug and alcohol use are incorporated into middle and high school curricula and are targeted at prevention and awareness. However, drug use among young people remains a prominent issue, with many seeking stricter methods of deterrence. Random drug testing in schools has been proposed and in some cases implemented as a complementary method of drug abuse prevention, potentially more robust than education alone, given its invasive nature and tendency to publicly identify a drug user to his or her peers. Yet these same features make random drug testing highly controversial.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) was established in 1988 with the charge of reducing the national and international drug concerns impacting our society. These charges include promoting awareness and developing and supporting programs to impact drug utilization—which in turn have an impact on health, crime, education and the economy. Different political climates have emphasized different aspects of this mission. President George W. Bush's 2006 State of the Union Address suggested that a governmental role in promoting personal responsibility for choices would have an impact on inappropriate drug use in the population. President Barack Obama's 2013 National Drug Control Strategy (NDCS) emphasized the scientific basis of what Obama called "a balanced public health and safety and public safety approach" (ONDCP, 2013, p. 1). Yet reducing the prevalence of drug use by children, adolescents, and young adults has been a relatively consistent theme across government antidrug efforts.

While the goal of reducing youth drug use is fairly universal, views on the best methods to do so are much more conflicted. Student drug testing was originally largely confined to student athletes, with numerous cases supporting the legality of such testing. After concern over student drug use heightened in the 1990s and early 2000s, the US Supreme Court in 2002 ruled that drug testing could legally apply to any competitive extracurricular activity, expanding the scope of student testing on the federal level. However, the complexity of state and local law meant the legality of random student drug testing remained unclear and open to challenge in many jurisdictions (Frequently asked questions. . ., 2017).

Review of the literature does not provide robust enough studies to quantitatively support the theory that random drug testing alone deters adolescent drug use. While empirical research has shown that testing may have a favorable impact when implemented under certain circumstances, randomized controlled trials have also shown otherwise. Therefore research on and debate over random drug testing in schools remains ongoing.

Applications

The variety of key stakeholders with interest in random drug testing in schools must be recognized to appreciate the complexity and motivation behind their arguments either promoting or arguing this controversial practice.

A non-exhaustive list of stakeholders includes:

Students.
School administrators, teachers, advisers.
Government, including the ONDCP.
Private industry - drug testing suppliers.
Parents.
Extracurricular school sports coaches and colleges.
Healthcare industry - including medical and behavioral providers and the insurance industry.
Researchers.
Society at large.

The practice of random drug testing in schools elicits strong responses from individuals and groups because of multivariate concerns which are to be expected with governmentally driven initiatives that seem to impact our core values of liberty, privacy, and autonomy. Common themes emerge in the literature and the media surrounding the topic of this article (Figure 1).

SWOT Analysis of Drug Testing SWOT analysis (comparisons of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) below, contrasts the factors and values involved in random school drug testing initiatives and the context in which the programs are developed and assessed (Figure 2).

Discourse

Advocates' Positions.

Supporters of random drug testing in schools point to the harmful effects of drug use among young people and the need to take drastic measures to curb this use. They note that habitual drug use, which has many costs to society, commonly begins in the teenage years. Attention to random drug testing in schools increased in the early 2000s, in part due to trends of increasing teen drug use. As reported in USA Today, "Federal statistics show that almost 5% of 12-to-17-year-olds abused or were dependent on an illicit substance in 2005—more than 1 million kids. . . . The most popular illicit drug, marijuana, is more potent and dangerous today than it was a generation ago. Yet months or years can pass before even the most involved parents realize a child is using drugs, by which time treatment is much tougher" ("Random drug testing spreads...," 2007).

Advocates of random drug testing in schools suggest it provides students with a strong deterrent to peer pressure, as failing a test can have severe consequences. "It provides them with a suit of armour against peer pressure, enabling them to say no to drugs," said John P. Walters, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) (McKenna, 2007). Proponents often point to studies supporting such conclusions and indicating that testing regimes lower drug use, though in reality data conflict, and there is no statistical consensus on the subject. ("Random drug testing spreads...," 2007). According to McKenna (2007), "These include a survey in which 80 percent of high-school principals in Indiana reported an increase in drug use after the cessation of a state-wide testing program in 2000; a study by the US Department of Defense which found that drug use among military personnel decreased from 27 percent to less than 1 percent in the 25 years following the introduction of random drug tests; and research by Oregon Health & Science University in Portland which found that drug use was 14 percent lower in a school that used random drug testing compared with one that didn't — although it only compared these two schools."

Supporters also suggest that trends such as the opioid crisis of the 2010s show the need to more proactively fight drug abuse (Russo, 2017).

Critics' Position. Critics of random drug testing in schools are just as passionate as supporters, arguing that the tests are invasive and expensive, and that studies show testing does not ultimately deter drug use ("Random drug testing spreads...," 2007). They point to the fact that illicit drug use (except for marijuana) among school-age children reached all-time lows in the late 2010s, counteracting the fears that arose as the rate spiked in the 1990s and early 2000s (Russo, 2017).

Accuracy of any laboratory testing is a concern; false positives can occur in any testing facility; an adolescent whose drug testing is done in a public school forum faces loss of confidentiality and more emotional and social injury than if he or she had a comparable test done in the privacy of a private doctor's office. The American Academy of Pediatrics, an important and respected body of professionals speaks clearly against random drug testing; their perspective invites proactive planning for treatment beyond testing before broadly increasing the numbers of tests done. According to McKenna (2007), "the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) reaffirmed its position that drug testing should not be widely implemented without additional evaluation of its safety and efficacy. It also recommended making drug treatment services more readily available for teens."

Limitations of Random Drug Testing: Case Study. McKenna goes on to report, "What's more, such tests can flag kids who are 'clean' and miss genuine users. A study led by Levy and published . . . in Pediatrics examined recent drug tests of teenagers being treated for substance abuse. Of 710 drug tests performed, 85 gave incorrect results, either because the urine sample was too dilute to interpret properly, or because the test picked up prescription medicines. Meanwhile, routine tests failed to detect the painkiller oxycodone in nearly two-thirds of cases" (McKenna, 2007, ¶8).

"Drug tests can be very difficult to understand and interpret," says Levy. "There are lots of circumstances under which a kid could be using drugs and not test positive or have a positive test when they are not using drugs. While the rules for federally funded testing say positive results must be checked by an approved lab, no such rules exist for the approximately 500 schools that are testing without federal grants." Most schools do not partake in confirmatory testing as it adds a lot of cost (McKenna, 2007).

International Perspectives. Random drug testing in schools has been much more widely debated in the United States than most other countries, but the issue has appeared abroad as well. While implementation of testing has been rare, a few notable programs appeared or were proposed in the early twenty-first century. The Abbey School in Faversham, UK, began a mouth swab multi-drug testing program applied randomly to pupils in 2005. According to the UK's Department for Education and Skills (DfES), positive results decreased as the program went on, and the DfES considered further pilot schemes and trials of random tests (McKenna, 2007). In South Australia, in August 2006 member of parliament Ann Bressington proposed mandatory drug testing of all school students in the state over age fourteen on a biannual basis (McKenna, 2007).

Economic Perspectives. Critics of random school testing argue that there exists insufficient data to supply a foundation for policy making. Websites touting the value of random drug testing—targeted at audiences including government, educators, and parents- are accused by detractors that they are profit-driven, assuredly not working for the good of kids and society.

"The lucrative drug testing field is not bloating towards a million dollar business. The 1500 member Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association is actively weighing in to shape legislation and spin research which will expand their market for school based drug testing. The group's website boasts of success in fending off critics of student drug testing and lobbying for more federal funds" (Brendtro & Martin, 2006, p.75).

Cost benefit analysis of workplace drug testing shows savings for organizations that do screen, despite the expense associated with test administration. Workplace productivity is more measurable (in terms of financial data) than educational output, but employers and academic institutions are considered similar when compared in terms of drug use. A percentage of kids with unchecked drug problems in adolescence carry their drug or alcohol use into adulthood and the workplace. The following article cites substantial direct and indirect costs of workplace drug use. The author attempts to capture the comparability of the two environments below (Figure 3).

"According to Career Management International of Houston, American businesses lose $80 billion worth of production every year because of substance abuse. Employee Management Consultants Inc. of Florida estimates that 65% of all work place accidents are drug - related. Closer to home, a recent study by the Louisiana Worker's Compensation Corp. concluded that state businesses which test employees for drugs have half the number of accidents as companies without testing programs. Companies who don't test their workers also pay about 28% more per accident in medical hills and lost production than those that do, the study found.

Controlling accidents via drug testing means big savings for companies: The average cost of a workers' compensation claim in Louisiana is $8,000" (Delevett, 1997).

Medical bills are not the only costs of employee injury - company equipment, production time and job training are all affected and strained. The cost of these strains can be close to seven times the direct cost of injury (Delevett, 1997).

Experts cite a litany of other ways employee drug use affects the bottom line. They say users have twice the normal absentee rate, take five times the sick leave, have higher turnover rates, demand more of management's time, create friction with other workers and often are responsible for theft or damage to property or equipment (Delevett, 1997).

Applications

Statistical Analysis In addition to concerns about inaccurate drug testing, a similar and greater concern in terms of validating studies on the utility of the practice must be acknowledged. In academics and industry, quantitative analysis (data driven) is valued and in fact required in order to support change. Research into the effectiveness of random drug testing in schools is limited to a modest number of peer-reviewed, validated studies. Moreover, the costs to the student, in terms of potential harm to his or her social and psychological standing, must be quantified. Accepting nonscientific and potentially biased support for random drug testing is of concern to critics of the practice, perhaps with good reason.

Regarding random drug testing, "'I think that what is being presented is seductive,' says Sharon Levy, director of the Adolescent Substance Abuse Program at Children's Hospital Boston. However, she believes the ONDCP overstates the effectiveness of drug testing, and she is not alone. A 2005 survey of 359 US physicians specializing in pediatric, adolescent and family medicine, found that 80 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with the ONDCP's recommendation that all adolescent students be tested for drugs. John Knight, also of Children's Hospital Boston, says there are only two peer-reviewed articles. 'One showed essentially no correlation between testing and drug use rates, the other showed a slight decline,' he says" (McKenna, 2007, ¶6)

"The AAP points to the largest federally funded study on school drug testing so far, conducted by the University of Michigan. It surveyed more than 76,000 students and found virtually no difference in marijuana use between schools that tested and ones that did not. Based on this and other studies, an independent review by the UK's Joseph Rowntree Foundation concluded in 2005 that the evidence in favour of drug testing was 'remarkably thin,' and that it may be 'potentially damaging' to efforts to tackle drug abuse" (McKenna, 2007, ¶7).

A nationally representative study of 943 high school students published in 2012 was undertaken by Sharon Sznitzman et al. to evaluate the effects of drug testing in both positive and negative school climates. Previous studies had not considered the combined impact of drug testing and school climate. Positive school climates were defined in the study as ones where school rules were clear, teachers are effective at handling problems, students respect each other and teachers, and teachers respect students. The study concluded:

"Indeed, drug testing appears to be particularly ineffective for female students in negative climate schools, which tend to have higher substance use rates and thus are in most need of effective substance prevention programs. Interventions that improve school climate may have much greater efficacy in reducing student substance use. Thus, our findings indicate that drug testing should not be undertaken as a stand-alone substance prevention effort and that improvements in school climate should be considered before implementing drug testing." (Sznitzman et al., 2012, 153)

The authors of the study also concluded that more research is necessary to validate the effectiveness of drug testing as part of whole school prevention programs that aim to improve school climates.

In the Field - Proof or Hope Clearly there exists a quandary for the data-driven scientist, when schools that have implemented random drug testing tout moderate success in changing adolescent drug behavior. It is intriguing to parents and alluring to stakeholders when schools such as one in New Jersey report the following success:

"High school principal Chris Steffner says she's seen many efforts to keep teens from using drugs: Education programs, 'Just Say No' campaigns, scary speeches from people who were caught driving drunk. 'None of those things have any lasting impact,' she says. 'Peer pressure is so strong.' That's why, Steffner says, she's a cheerleader for random drug testing of students. She tells other principals about the testing program she helped oversee for the past two years at Hackettstown High School, a 700-student campus in northern New Jersey. During the program's first year, 10% of Hackettstown's students were tested randomly from a pool of students who took part in after-school activities or who drove to school. One student tested positive, she says. Last year, 25% of the students were screened. No one tested positive. The results show testing deters teen drug use, Steffner says: 'It works in the workplace and it works in the military. Why wouldn't it work in a school?'" (Leinwand, 2006)

Conclusion

Random drug testing in schools is a controversial practice to many key stakeholders. Short and long-term impact on the student subjected to such testing requires more research and much more discussion. This discussion should include input from the children and adolescents being tested. While random drug testing in schools may be legal in many contexts, questions remain as to the effects—positive or negative—random drug testing may have on all those directly or directly impacted by this initiative.

Terms & Concepts

American Academy of Pediatrics: Professional organization of health providers dedicated to the health of children; http://www.aap.org/

False Positive Drug Test: Inaccurate test result that implies drugs have been used by the person being tested, when in fact they have not.

Peer-reviewed Study: Professional evaluation of a colleague's research

Quantitative Analysis: Analysis and study which uses collection, analysis and interpretation of measurable data; used in making informed decisions.

Random Drug Testing: A technical examination of urine, blood, sweat, or oral fluid samples to identify the presence or absence of specified drugs, administered without notice or preparation on the part of the party being tested.

SWOT Analysis: Tool used to in business to evaluate the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats involved in a project or initiative. It assists the analyst in identifying factors that are favorable and unfavorable within the project or objective.

Bibliography

Brendtro, L., & Martin Jr., G. (2006). Respect versus surveillance: Drug testing our students. Reclaiming Children & Youth, 15 , 75–81. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=22065682&site=ehost-live

Butler, F. (2012). Urine trouble: Drug testing of students and teachers in public schools. Current Issues in Education, 15, 1–12. Retrieved December 13, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Resource Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=ehh &AN=88843583

Delevett, P. (1997). Benefits may outweigh companies' costs for drug testing. New Orleans City Business, 18, 9. Retrieved December 16, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Regional Business News. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bwh&AN=9709193245&site=ehost-live

Dupont, R. L., Merlo, L. J., Arria, A. M., & Shea, C. L. (2013). Random student drug testing as a school-based drug prevention strategy. Addiction, 108, 839–845. Retrieved October 23, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=86980238

Frequently asked questions about drug testing in schools. (2017, May). National Institute on Drug Abuse. Retrieved from https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/drug-testing/faq-drug-testing-in-schools

Leinwand, D. (2006, July 12). Principal: Drug testing students works. USA Today, 3a.

McKenna, P. (2007). Schools urged into divisive crackdown. New Scientist, 193(2600), 44–44.

Office of National Drug Control Policy (2013). 2013 National Drug Control Strategy. Retrieved December 13, 2013 from http://www.whitehouse.gov//sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/ndcs%5F2013.pdf

Random drug testing spreads, one school a week. (2007, May 8). USA Today, 19a.

Russo, C. J. (2017). Drug testing of student-athletes: An ongoing issue: With the opioid epidemic making national headlines, where does the Court stand on random drug testing of student-athletes? School Business Affairs, 83(11), 36–38. Retrieved October 24, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=127783978&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Shah, N. (2013). Drug testing. Education Week, 32, 5. Retrieved December 13, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=86707923

Sznitman, S. R. (2013). Exploring the promise of mandatory random student drug testing by comparing it to other school drug prevention strategies. Addiction, 108, 848–850. Retrieved October 23, 2014 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=86980231

Sznitman, S., Dunlop, S., Nalkur, P., Khurana, A., & Romer, D. (2012). Student drug testing in the context of positive and negative school climates: Results from a national survey. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 41, 146155. Retrieved December 13, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=70247412

Sznitman, S. R., & Romer, D. (2014). Student drug testing and positive school climates: testing the relation between two school characteristics and drug use behavior in a longitudinal study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol & Drugs, 75, 65–73. Retrieved October 23, 2014 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=94144886

Young, S. (2010). PIAC (pee in a cup) - The new standardized test for student-athletes. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, 163–190. Retrieved December 13, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=51197048

Random Drug Testing in Schools

On this Page

Subject Terms

Random Drug Testing in Schools

Abstract

Overview

Applications

Discourse

Advocates' Positions.

Applications

Conclusion

Terms & Concepts

Bibliography

Suggested Reading