BoardBuzz

« NSBA's summer campaign to cut the Federal Education Tax | Main | Editorials That Get It: Taking out-of-state 'ideologues' to task »

August 5, 2004

Trends Worth Watching: A new approach to drug testing?

The politics around student drug testing have taken some interesting turns of late. According to the LA Times, the California State PTA is backing state legislation that would ban any "suspicionless" drug testing of students. Random testing without reasonable suspicion of drug abuse "implies that there is no trust," a PTA spokeswoman told a recent California Assembly hearing on the measure.

Drug testing critics raise some valid questions. As BoardBuzz has noted, there is conflicting information on the effectiveness of testing policies, and testing only those students who are involved in athletics and extracurriculars may miss the kids who actually are more at risk: those who are disengaged from school. But more widespread testing raises legal questions. At any rate, reliable testing is expensive, and given the state of school budgets and accountability pressures, drug testing may be a lower priority for many districts than other pressing academic and fiscal challenges.

Still, some local school officials maintain that testing has been effective for them and is vital to address known drug problems in their schools and communities. With the federal Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) promising funds and vigorously promoting more drug testing through programs like its 25 Cities Initiative, more school boards may be looking into the idea. An ONDCP official testified at the California hearing, opposing the legislation and arguing that suspicionless testing could curtail a public health "epidemic."

A way forward
Meanwhile, at the local level, a new trend may be emerging. BoardBuzz thinks it's one worth watching. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that the school board of the Plum Borough School District is considering a homegrown proposal that would randomly test among students whose parents consent to the testing. That means all students theoretically could be in the testing pool, not just those who take part in extracurricular activities. But parents who object to the testing could opt out. The costs would be covered by a state grant.

Another advantage: The proposal focuses on informing parents and helping kids, not on punitive consequences. The purely punitive approach has some political "get tough" appeal, but ironically it may endanger kids more. If a child tests positive and is drummed out of the basketball team, he or she may end up with more unsupervised and idle after-school time—not exactly the smartest way to prevent drug use. In the Plum proposal, though, the district wouldn't even get the test results. Instead, only the parents would. The district just would be available to provide referrals for drug treatment if the parents ask for help.

The plan has gained acceptance from some parents and others who have serious misgivings about mandatory testing. And as NSBA pointed out to the Tribune-Review, another voluntary program is being proposed right now in Phoenix.

This is not to say the Plum approach is the only acceptable testing option for school boards. NSBA has twice gone to bat as amicus curiae to urge the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve the local discretion of school boards to adopt drug testing programs. The court has upheld random testing as a mandatory condition of participating in athletics or extracurricular activities. It's possible that parents of the most at-risk children may be somewhat less likely to consent to testing under the voluntary Plum proposal.

But as a way of avoiding some of the legal and political pitfalls, we think the parental permission approach holds promise. It may be a good way to build consensus and keep the focus on how best to help children and parents, rather than becoming yet another occasion for the culture warriors on all sides to trap school boards and school children in their crossfire. We're not saying the voluntary approach answers all the tough issues above. It doesn't. But it can shorten the list.

There is another issue worth pointing out to school boards considering drug testing. Districts that test for some drugs but decide to save money by omitting tests for steroids may be missing the boat. Steroid testing is considerably more expensive than tests for other drugs, and the Plum plan will not screen for steroids. But the steroid problem among kids is real and, some say, getting worse. Check out the cover story in the latest issue of American School Board Journal (ASBJ).

Enough edicts from on high
One final point: The ASBJ article notes that some legislators in California and Florida have taken the opposite approach from that endorsed by the California PTA. Instead of trying to prohibit some drug testing, they've introduced legislation to require schools to test, specifically for steroids.

A suggestion for state politicians on both sides of this issue: Instead of issuing drug testing decrees—for or against—from the state house, how about taking your cue from the feds on this particular issue? If you really want to weigh in, feel free to provide funding, support more research, and offer more information for school boards to consider. Do so insistently if you like. But skip the mandates. Skip the bans. Let school boards do their job—based on local conditions, local concerns, and their best judgment of local school needs.

Posted August 5, 2004 12:00 AM