Random Drug Testing in SchoolsEssay Preview: Random Drug Testing in SchoolsReport this essayRandom Drug Testing in SchoolsConsidering the increasing use of drugs among todays youth, drug testing in schools has become necessary. The ramifications of using these drugs are detrimental to both the individual and society as a whole. Drug testing is meant to protect students from the harmful effects and has been shown to deter drug use in a large percentage of those on whom it has been practiced. The procedures themselves are non-invasive and result in no side effects. In addition, the United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of these evaluations. The random drug testing of students involved in extra curricular activities is a positive and beneficial policy and should be mandatory in schools.
Surveys have shown that drug prevention methods, such as random drug testing, are working. A one-year pilot study was conducted at Wahtonka and Warrenton High Schools in Oregon. Of 135 athletes at Wahtonka, only 5.3% were using drugs by the end of the 1999-2000 school year. On the other hand, of 141 students, 19.4% were using illegal substances at Warrenton where there was no drug testing going on. Besides being four times less likely to use drugs, Wahtonka attendees were “three times less likely to use performance-enhancing substances such as steroids” (Associated Press 2A). Wahtonka principal, Merry Holland, was very pleased with the results; they continued testing once the study was completed.
There are many reasons that drug testing curbs drug use. It may be that the fear of being caught discourages kids from using. Board members at Antioch High, Illinois, provide an alternative theory. “…testing provides some students with a concrete excuse to say “no” when urged to participate in illegal activities by peers” (Grusich 3). An eleventh grader at the Hebrew Academy of the Five Towns and Rockaway says, “Someone who hasnt started may be deterred from starting because of the testing. If I was thinking of getting started, I wouldnt want to get caught in school. Id decide against it” (Ain 14). Ending a problem before it begins is a positive effect, especially when there is the chance that students might endanger themselves or others. Being under the influence of drugs makes a potentially dangerous situation even more dangerous. Some students are even taking these drug tests voluntarily. In Texas, a school offers discount cards to over 150 local businesses as an incentive for staying off drugs (Perry 16). This program is one of many different reasons that motivate kids to pass the tests.
Drug testing is growing in popularity. In addition to the ever-growing number of schools that test student athletes and those wishing to participate in extracurricular activities and companies that test employees, parents are now testing their own kids at home (Perry 16). Since parents test their own children, it is not unreasonable for schools to do so as well. Teachers act as guardians while inside the school and have the students best interests in mind. They are “responsible for maintaining discipline, heath and safety” (Kozlowski 34). Parents support the schools one hundred percent. At Hebrew Academy, the parents on the school board “…unanimously approved the policy. No parents have called and said they do not want their child tested” (Ain 14).
The Parents’ Association for Public School Choice, the first nationwide group to support California law to prohibit personal accountability in private schools, has now established a group of parents with over 8,000 members and 728,851 children ages 12-16 who’ve received state or school-issued vouchers that they claim are “personalizing” their education. The group’s members include members of all major political parties including California governor Jerry Brown, former California lawmakers, parents of single-parent homes and teachers’ unions; more than 2,000 parents who currently have federal loans (Nixon, 1981, 1995), parents of 1,000 or more students under age 18; more than 1,500 parents of 10 to 17 year olds; parents of 100- to 199- to 399-year-olds. The group of parents is comprised of parents who are currently out of a job, family commitments, and other parental rights that might have a “no-privacy” obligation based on whether the parents have a right in practice, not just an obligation under their contract with the school(s). They have also included parents who are no longer performing their full responsibilities under the contract, and, especially for the former, the parents are very worried about the effects of the law on academic achievement and how close they will come to dropping out of college. Since they were first established, the parent organizations have not only supported school choice, but also have spoken out about the fact that most of them reject what the parent associations call private school desegregation (Gartner 38). Even some of the parent organizations that are opposed to the bill are saying that they are “very concerned” about the unintended consequences of allowing families to use their own financial resources and that they cannot afford to have their children get into public schools. According to the parents’ association, “the potential for unintended consequences for student achievement is serious and the primary risk that can result from having a state-wide voucher program is the lack of school oversight of school administrators, and, even more serious than that, the very failure of state education officials to educate the parents.” Families who participate are being evaluated individually and by the school board (Nixon, 1982, 1995). The group of parents believes that if the California school system allows state-wide school vouchers to be used, what has happened is that state schools have become more and more intrusive. According to the parents’ association: “The government is trying to make sure we don’t have to be forced into public school education; it has the power to decide where students go, let them go for an extended period of time, and take their classes, send them to private schools.” The parents’ association says that schools have become more punitive in their approach because of the failure to hold private colleges and universities accountable or that private school counselors have become increasingly invasive in their practice. “This practice is an abuse of power because there is little choice but to use taxpayer money and other private dollars to further school choice that are used to support
The argument that testing is an invasion of privacy and infringes on civil rights is easily discredited. The process of a urinalysis test goes as follows: “a faculty monitor waits outside the closed restroom stall for the student to produce a sample and must listen for the normal sounds of urination to guard against tampered specimens and ensure an accurate chain of custody” (Kozlowski 34). This is considered to be a negligible intrusion of privacy. These tests are compared to standard head lice checks. Katherine Ford, the director of the Florida Drug Free America Foundation says, “No one claims it is a violation of a childs civil rights to have their head checked for lice. It is no different with drugs – except the harm that comes from using drugs is far greater” (Donegan 2). Also, schoolchildren submit to physical examination, vaccinations, and communal dress while attending school. All details of the test are kept strictly confidential. The police are never contacted. If the situation arises that a student is using drugs, the school and parents alone will deal with them. Participation in extracurricular activities is limited until he/she completes four hours of substance abuse counseling, but there are no academic consequences (Syllabus 12). The accuracy and “minimally intrusive nature” of urinalysis tests are not refuted