| Drug Testing
For High School Extracurricular Participants: A Proactive Approach |
|
A Research Project The following article is a compilation of research on drug-testing issues and strategies in high school athletic programs. This investigation was conducted by a committee of graduate students enrolled in the Ohio University Master’s Program in Athletic Administration. Information contained in this article was presented to the faculty and the 13-member class in December 2003 during the NFHS National Conference of High School Directors of Athletics in Indianapolis.
Court Findings that Support Drug Testing for High School Extracurricular
Participants
In both cases, the court ruled that students who participate in a voluntary extracurricular activity may be subject to random suspicionless drug-testing. Court Findings That Support Drug Testing of Students who Drive to
and from School
Schools as Advocacy Agencies Although drug testing of extracurricular participants has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, there are numerous political and logistic issues that must be resolved before recommending that an education governance board or administration approve implementation. The intent of any school is to provide a safe, healthy and productive learning environment for its students. In general, successful drug-testing programs are not intended to catch and convict students. Instead, they are generally instituted to help deter initial student usage, intervene the continued use of illegal drugs and identify those students who may benefit from referral to appropriate drug education, counseling and treatment agencies. In many school prevention and intervention procedures, law enforcement is not part of the overall process. Seen in this light, drug prevention and intervention programs are more closely allied with the concept of community heath enhancement. Within every community, the use of illegal drugs is a concern. As a proactive measure, school leaders must be provided evidence of a local need to take a coordinated approach to education and intervention. Research of best practices suggests that a program should be designed to include instruction drawn from contemporary scientific information. In addition, prevention efforts should be based on a model of informed and responsible decision-making. When drug-testing intervention is incorporated, emphasis should be given to the primary goals of a testing program: student-need assessment, counseling and improvement of the general health and safety of enrolled students. Seek Approval Through Orientation of Decision-Makers An overview of various arguments that persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court to support involuntary drug testing for extracurricular activities centered on student advocacy and intervention of drug usage. In this regard, education decision-makers must understand the important considerations that led other school districts to initiate research of the issue and begin a drug-prevention/intervention program. In all cases, an expression of public concern preceded local drug testing and intervention decisions. For example, in Vernonia, Oregon, parents expressed concerned about student drug use and contacted school officials to see what could be done to intervene usage by student-athletes. In Derry, Pennsylvania, key factors that led to community support for implementation of a high school drug-testing program for athletes were:
Local Committee Research With two supportive U.S. Supreme Court decisions as a foundation, motivated citizens or school officials should seek permission to gather anecdotal and survey data on local high school drug usage. In this regard, research findings further indicate that concerned citizens and/or school officials should ask the education governance board or superintendent for approval to organize a committee or task force to conduct local research and make research-based recommendations. Committee Development and Purpose If approved at the governance level, it is further recommended that the local research committee be selected to represent a cross section of the school-community. In addition, it is suggested that 10-15 members be actively solicited and appointed for their abilities to provide insight concerning the opinions of a variety of constituents. Specifically, the drug prevention program committee should include representatives from the following sectors: parents, extracurricular participants, local police, the student assistance (drug and alcohol) coordinator, guidance counselor, teachers, coaches, members of the governance board, legal counsel, physicians, the school or district athletic director and senior administration. By including representatives of diverse community factions, the committee will gain credibility as it debates issues of concern. This committee would also be able to discuss and resolve volatile issues at a committee level without widespread community dissent or media distortion. Local Data Collection To enhance the decision-making process, it is recommended that data be collected from student surveys. Such surveys would be used to produce statistics concerning drug use and practices among the local student population. NOTE: If school personnel wish to conduct student surveys concerning drug usage and opinions, state law may require written parent permission before conducting the survey. Data sources may include, but are not limited to longitudinal research studies of high school student drug use by the University of Michigan, local school drug usage data including student discipline records, police reports, student and parent survey data and expressions of concern by students, parents and staff. An overview of successful drug intervention programs throughout the nation, suggests that a local district Drug Testing Committee (DTC) be commissioned to address four issues. These are:
Although Court-Supported, Drug-Testing is Controversial An important but controversial component of drug prevention programs today is the use of a drug test as an intervention mechanism. The committee would be charged to review both the positive and negative arguments on this issue and make a recommendation concerning local implementation based on the history of successful programs throughout the nation and the need established from local survey data. Typical Arguments in Support of Drug Testing In support of random drug testing of students involved in extracurricular activities, some argue that it is a valuable tool that helps students reject peer pressure. Rather than succumbing to pressure, a student can use the possibility of random drug testing as a reason not to participate in an illegal activity. As importantly, a random drug test can be a valuable intervention tool for educators, because it facilitates identification of students who may have a dependence problem. Finally, a random drug test can foster goodwill within the community. It sends a message to the community that school leaders are working to educate and monitor students about drug dependence and, when necessary, intervene harmful usage patterns. Typical Arguments Against Drug Testing There are several arguments typically used to oppose random drug tests as a component of a drug prevention program. Some argue that there may be a reduction of student participation in activities because potential athletes and other extracurricular participants will refuse to be tested. Others point to a potential loss of class time in order to participate in the testing program. Still others point to the significant cost of the testing and the additional pressures that will be placed on an already-stressed budget. Cite Successful Programs One of the strongest arguments that can be raised to support drug testing is evidence of the deterrent effect testing programs can have over time. In this regard, the results of a New Jersey school district may be illustrative. In 1997, the Hunterdon Central Regional High School in Flemington, New Jersey, conducted a survey of student drug use prior to implementing a program of random drug testing of athletes. The survey gathered information about student drug and alcohol usage, including frequency and intensity patterns. Following the 1997 survey, Hunterdon Central implemented mandatory random drug testing for all student-athletes. Annually, approximately half the Hunterdon student body participates in athletics. Prior to implementing random testing, the school also had a student counseling and education program and conducted drug searches. In 1999, the survey was conducted again. The only variable within the school’s “reasonable-belief” anti-drug program was the introduction of random testing. The 1999 survey data indicated showed that student usage declined in 20 of the 28 categories of drug usage evaluated by the survey. As a dramatic example, athlete-usage rates decreased by 55.6 percent. Data Analysis and Proposing the Program After local research has been completed and data analyzed, it is recommended that the local task force committee meet with senior administration officials and the local governance board to review the findings. If the data are supportive, the committee may recommend that the governance board approve institution of a local drug prevention and intervention program. Once approved by the governance board, orientation programs for enrolled students, school personnel and the larger community are next steps. Educating the Community An overview of successful programs indicates that leaders of these programs have typically invited all enrolled high school students and their parents to a school information meeting through use of a board-approved informational mailing. Additionally, interested community members have been invited to a subsequent open community meeting at which the drug prevention and intervention program was explained and concerns addressed. When contemplating educational efforts, it is important to involve the local media in a proactive manner. Media releases and interviews should place emphasis on the fact that the program is not intended to be punitive, but rather, provide assistance to students while giving them a valid reason to say “No.” The committee’s consistent focus must be on the educational and preventive benefits. If questions are raised about the testing program, responses should focus on this procedure as a mechanism to enhance intervention of student dependence and to refer them for professional assistance. A parallel emphasis should be directed to the school district’s efforts to help students resist peer pressure through the use of random testing procedures. Logistics of a Drug Prevention-Intervention Program When a Board of Education determines that it will institute a drug prevention/intervention program, the designated research committee must also gather information and make recommendations concerning several logistical issues. In the following section, several operational issues are cited and sample response methods used in schools throughout the nation are outlined:
Beating the Tests — What You Need to Know The local school or district must be prepared for the unexpected when drug testing a group of high school students and athletes. There have been incidents wherein students have added salt, Visine, bleach or vinegar to alter their samples. In addition, some students have ingested large quantities of water to dilute their collected samples. Additionally, students have been known to leave behind cups of their clean urine in the bathroom stall for drug-using friends. Prescreened urine can be purchased from online suppliers. The “clean” urine comes in a bag that can be concealed under clothing and conveniently heated to body temperature. Web sites also advertise materials to change the molecular configuration of a collected sample. The neutralizing additive is completely untraceable unless specific tests are performed. Still another Web site offers products to render urine and hair drug tests ineffective by flushing out the urinary tract within a few minutes to an hour. Synthetic urine is also sold on this same Web site with a full explanation and diagram of how to conceal and use it during a drug-testing session. New government guidelines and testing procedures require all laboratories to perform a specimen integrity check before testing for drugs. The labs are no longer looking just for marijuana and other illicit drugs, but also for additives, dilution, and for masking and flushing products. With specific testing, all these products are detectable and will result in a failed drug-test report. Some drug-test kits suggest strip searches to make ensure that students do not carry products to distort test results. The Ohio University graduate research committee would not concur with this recommendation, because of the extreme likelihood of a lawsuit for invasive search. Instead, thorough education, communication with parents and extracurricular participants, and careful monitoring are safer avenues to follow. Defraying Costs Drug-testing programs can put a great strain on already tight school district budgets. School personnel who have rejected implementation of a drug-testing program indicated that high costs were the sole reason for not initiating a program. Some schools that have dropped programs have done so for the same reason. Schools leaders, team members and parent support groups who are serious about deterring the use of drugs should work with the community at large to raise funds, while also researching federal funding to help defray drug-testing costs. In the following section, various funding methods are suggested:
Discipline of Extracurricular Participants Schools vary in the application of disciplinary penalties for extracurricular participants. A common theme persists when parents and/or students refuse testing. The student is generally declared ineligible for activity participation until he/she submits to testing and produces a drug-free test. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that this prohibition does not violate a student’s property right to a free, public education, because of the voluntary nature of extracurricular participation. When an active student-participant tests positive for illegal substances, responses vary from no discipline pending successful assessment and counseling by a trained staff member to minimal penalties for first violation. More stringent discipline is generally instituted for subsequent violations. In all cases, the reasons for student discipline remain confidential. Conclusion School or school district leaders who are considering a drug prevention and testing program for extracurricular participants and student drivers should NOT engage in drug tests simply because it has the support of two U.S. Supreme Court decisions. To do so may elicit a community perception that the education governance board and senior administrators are aloof, uncaring and arrogant. As an alternative strategy, research suggests that the emphasis should be given to education and prevention as proactive themes. Testing is introduced as a comprehensive approach to deterring drug usage while promoting a healthy and safer school-community environment. For that reason, it is strongly recommend that a local school committee or task force begin by conducting research to demonstrate evidence that local parents, coaches and students are concerned about a continuing pattern of observed incidents. In this way, school and drug-testing committee officials demonstrate compliance with the Fourth Amendment by providing evidence to support a “reasonable belief” that drug use is commonplace among student drivers, athletes and other extracurricular participants within their school and/or community. It is further recommended that results from high schools that have successfully conducted drug-testing programs as a long-term deterrent to continuing student usage be demonstrated to governance boards and local education leaders school. Random drug testing has proven effective as one component of a comprehensive program to prevent and intervene student drug usage. It is hoped that the research-based information contained in this article will provide a catalyst for local school or district considerations, discussions and planning. References Periodicals
Web sites: http://archive.aclu.org/court/acton2.html Ohio University Graduate Research Committee: Claire Baggesen Cranston, Rhode Island |