Click here to go back to issues list
Should schools be able to drug-test students?
Echo Issue Outline 2000 / 16: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
What they said ...
'You can't do it (compulsorily drug test) for adults, and children are entitled to at least the same protection'
President of Liberty Victoria, Felicity Hampel, QC
'This proposal to test those [students] ... is not a punitive one but a rehabilitative one'
Principal of Melbourne Grammar School, Mr Paul Sheahan
Three prominent Melbourne private schools, Geelong Grammar, Melbourne Grammar and Wesley Grammar, have either begun urine testing students for illicit drug use or are considering doing so.
There has been a mixed reaction to these proposals. There are those who consider them a responsible action from the schools concerned. There are others who consider drug testing of students an over-reaction and a violation of students' rights.
Background
The drug testing policy at Melbourne Grammar is to operate in the following manner.
Students caught using drugs or suspected of doing so are to be told to take a $50 urine test paid for by their parents. Teachers are taught to look for signs of possible drug-taking. These include laziness, sleepiness, red eyes and poor academic performance. These signs could be grounds for the student to be required to take a drug test.
Students who repeatedly failed the tests and could not be rehabilitated within the school would be asked to leave.
The issue of student drug testing has become a contentious one within the United States.
Mandatory student drug testing has been allowed in many American states for years.
The only definitive legal ruling in the United States was brought down in 1995. This was a Supreme Court ruling which allowed schools to demand urine tests for students trying out for sports teams.
That ruling has been used by many American schools to justify the testing of all students for drugs that are not related to athletic performance.
In April, 2000, a group of parents in Lockney, northern Texas, launched a challenge to the local high school's drug testing program.
The parents claim that drug testing violates the students' rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The amendment, passed in 1789, protects citizens against 'unreasonable searches and seizures'.
It is predicted that the Lockney challenge will spark a spate of similar challenges to the validity of current drug testing policies across the United States.
An interesting place to start is with a United States site, Family Watch Library.
Family Watch is a network of groups and individuals concerned about the impact of drug policy on families, women and children.
The self-stated goals of the network are to increase communication and to push issues related to families, women and children to the forefront of the drug policy debate, and help create progressive policies which preserve the health and well-being of the family unit.
This site gives a number of US media reports on aspects of drug testing in schools.
One of these is an article written by Anick Jesdanun for the Associated Press, and originally published on April 29, 1999. It is titled, Republicans Propose Drug Testing in Schools
It reports on an attempt by two House Republicans to have federally funded drug testing in schools as a way to reduce youth violence.
It can be read at http://www.familywatch.org/library/addrus.002.html
Another item is drawn from the Halifax Daily News, Canada and was originally published on November 29, 1998. It is written by Chris Lambie and it titled Teens Turned Off By Drug-Search Ruling
It deals with a recent High Court ruling which appears to allow teachers to search students for drugs.
The article can be found at http://www.familywatch.org/library/drte.003.html
Another piece dealing with the issue of student privacy is an editorial originally published in the New York Times on July 4, 1999. The editorial is titled, A Threat to Student Privacy.
The editorial argues against a recent decision by the Orleans Parish School Board in Louisiana to consider a program that would require random drug testing of all students involved in athletics and extracurricular activities, with voluntary testing for the rest of the student body.
The editorial can be found at http://www.familywatch.org/library/scdrpo.001.html
Another interesting article was drawn from the Los Angeles Times and was originally published in March, 1999.
It is titled High Court limits drug testing of students and was written by David G Savage.
It is a report of a recent High Court ruling which found that students who appear to be under the influence of drugs can be drug tested at school, however, school officials may not routinely test groups of students about whom they have no reasonable grounds for suspicion.
The article can be found at http://www.familywatch.org/library/drte.003.html
In 1999 a Mr Christopher J. Neuendorf put on the Internet his objections to drug-testing of students in schools. Mr Neuendorf's children attend school in South Dearborn, Indiana. Their school has recently introduced random drug testing of its students.
The piece is titled Random Drug Testing in Schools is a Tragedy.
The piece appears to be the opinion of a private individual, however, it makes interesting reading as it presents a series of objections to a number of the more commonly put arguments in favour of drug testing in schools.
It can be found at http://www.seidata.com/~neusys/colm0113.html
The site on which this view is published gives a range of opinions from Christopher J. Neuendorf and David W. Neuendorf. David Neuendorf is a software developer.
The Dodge City Daily Globe, Kansas, reported on March 8, 1999, on a group of students who were lobbying to have their school introduce compulsory drug testing for all middle school and high school athletes and others involved in extra-curricular activities.
The article is titled Student group proposes mandatory drug testing.
It can be found at http://dodgeglobe.com/stories/030899/com_0308990006.shtml
Arguments against schools being able to have students take drug tests
There are a number of arguments offered against schools being able to have students take drug tests.
The first argument offered is that these tests are an infringement of the students civil liberties.
According to this line of argument, no school should be able to require a student to undergo what is essentially a medical test. No school has the legal authority (as do the police, for example, when requiring people to undergo blood alcohol testing) to compel students to take such tests.
The president of the civil liberties organisation, Liberty Victoria, Felicity Hampel, QC, has stated, 'You can't do it (mandatory testing) for adults, and children are entitled to at least the same protection.'
Norman Abrams, a Melbourne partner in the law firm Phillips Fox, has argued that schools with poorly designed and implemented student drug testing policies could be vulnerable to legal challenges.
Mr Abrams has suggested that such policies could be challenged on the basis of privacy, liberty and discrimination issues.
Mr Abrams has further suggested that student drug testing could only proceed on a voluntary basis, and thus, apparently, there could be no threat of expulsion for students who refused to take such a test.
Mr Abrams has also warned that if information about a student suspected of drug-taking became public knowledge, this could be defamatory.
Mr Abrams has noted, 'To ensure that no one in school can successfully pursue a defamation claim, great care must be exercised when schools document, publish or distribute any material which might concern a student's alleged drug use.'
It has also been argued that as these tests are potentially intrusive and threaten the privacy of students, they are likely to be resented by students, whether they are found to have been taking drugs or not. It has been claimed that they may create ill-feeling between a school and its student body and that this could be detrimental to the operation of the school as a whole.
It has further been suggested that the tests, of themselves, are unlikely to have any positive impact on student drug use.
According to this line of argument such a detection measure is relatively useless unless it is accompanied by a good drug education program for all students and unless there is effective follow-up counselling for those students found, through testing, or other means, to have a drug problem.
This point has been made by the Victorian premier, Mr Steve Bracks.
Mr Bracks has claimed that without drug education and other preventative measures, testing students would have little effect.
It has even been suggested that if there is a good drug education and student support program available within a school, there is little need to introduce drug-testing procedures.
This point has also been made by the Victorian premier. Mr Bracks has stated that although he will watch with interest what happens in those three Victorian private schools where there is to be drug testing, he does not believe such tests are necessary in Victorian state schools.
There are even those who have suggested that drug testing students is likely to be counter-productive as it may destroy the trust and confidence between students and their school.
According to this line of argument, there may be students who will not seek help from their school counsellor or other appropriate support person because they see their school's attitude to drug-taking as punitive rather than supportive.
This point has been made by Simon Castles, editor of The Big Issue.
Mr Castles has stated, 'At a difficult age - when we were already struggling to form relationships with parents, teachers and mentors - drug tests would just have given us one more reason to not trust anyone in authority.'
It has also been suggested that urine testing, primarily for marijuana, may increase the trend for students to experiment with drugs, such as heroin and ecstasy.
This point has been made by Mr Tony Hewison, former headmaster of St Michael's Grammar School.
Mr Hewison has stated, 'Marijuana is easily detected in urine, which is not the case with most other drugs ... and so drug testing can only accelerate a highly disturbing move towards other drugs [such as heroin, cocaine and ecstasy].'
It has also been argued that there are likely to be many students who will be asked to take a drug test and will be found not to have a drug habit.
Those who put this argument claim that laziness, sleepiness, red eyes and poor academic performance are too vague to act as criteria for drug testing and further that they are part of the behaviour of too many students who do not take drugs.
Finally, it has been argued, it may not be appropriate to ask students who repeatedly fail drug tests to leave a school.
John Toumbourou, associate professor of Melbourne University's Centre of Adolescent health, has claimed, 'The schools need to be aware that some young people will not be able to give up, even though they make every attempt to do so.'
'They may,' Professor Toumbourou claims, 'be on the road to recovery but continue to use (drugs) in a different way, that would still be regarded as progress. And the schools need to take that on board. The goals of drug treatment are not these days limited to abstinence.'
Professor Toumbourou has suggested that schools which expel students who continue to fail drug-tests could be increasing the risks faced by those students. An increased drug habit or progression to other drugs are possible steps that could follow expulsion for drug-use.
Arguments in favour schools being able to have students take drug tests
There are a number of arguments in favour of schools being able to have students take drug tests.
Firstly, it is argued that none of the Victorian private schools either conducting or planning to conduct student drug tests will conduct blanket testing.
Only those students who are either known to have taken drugs or whom the school has reasonable grounds for suspecting will be asked to take a drug test.
The headmaster of Melbourne Grammar, Mr Paul Sheahan, has stated, 'Parents should not be alarmed ... that we will have vigilante-style squads moving around the school, randomly identifying students for testing.'
Secondly, it is claimed that the purpose of such tests is not to punish the student concerned. It is claimed that testing positive for drugs does not automatically result in expulsion. Rather, it is claimed, the students concerned will be offered counselling and support to help them overcome the habit.
It is noted that rather than being a punishment, for students who are known to have taken drugs, being regularly monitored for drug use via testing is an alternative to expulsion. It is claimed to be the school's way of ensuring that the student either is, or is in the process of being, drug-free.
Drug testing is said to be necessary for two reasons.
It is claimed to be one way of helping a student with a drug problem, by giving an objective measure of his or her success in overcoming a drug. It has been suggested that if a student knows he or she is going to be tested for drugs and that continued enrolment at a particular school is dependent on overcoming this habit, this should act as an incentive to free him or herself of illicit drug use.
It is also claimed that drug testing is necessary to protect those students who do not take illicit drugs.
It has been argued that having students within a school who take drugs can act as an encouragement for other students to do the same. It has also been argued that quite apart from the force of example, students within a school who take drugs may supply those drugs to other students.
It is further claimed that private boarding schools have a particular responsibility in this matter because to a certain extent they act as a substitute family to the students in their care. It has been suggested that in these circumstances they have to be particularly vigorous in attempting to ensure that students who do not take drugs are not brought into contact with those who do.
This point has been made by Mr Roger Hayward, the principal of St Leonard's College.
Mr Hayward has stated, 'You have to remember that the schools involved in mandatory testing have boarders or residential programs and they must take the best possible duty of care. If St Leonard's had boarders we'd look at introducing similar programs.'
It is also argued by those who support drug testing in schools, that those who adopt such policies do so with great care and discretion.
According to this argument, such schools have protocols in place which ensure that students privacy is protected and that the confidentiality of test results is respected.
Further, it is noted, that students cannot be forced to take a test, though, under certain circumstances a refusal to take a test could result in a student being asked to leave a school.
It is also claimed that the schools who use drug testing do not see testing as an alternative to a more broadly based program for tackling drug use problems. The schools who use drug testing maintain that these tests are just one of the methods they use to protect and inform their students.
These schools claim to also have drug education programs and, as already noted, to offer counselling and other supports to students who are known to take drugs.
This point has been made by the principal of Melbourne Grammar School, Mr Paul Sheahan.
Mr Sheahan has claimed, 'This proposal to test those [students] who want a second chance is not a punitive one but a rehabilitative one in which we would work very closely with parents, the student involved and an independent counsellor in a very supportive context.'
The underlying argument of schools who either are or are considering introducing drug testing is that student drug use is harmful and must be discouraged.
Melbourne Grammar's headmaster, Mr Paul Shaehan, has noted, 'It is ... clear that some students arrive at school, especially after weekends, with what might be described as a "marijuana hangover", and consequently [are] not able to concentrate on their school work.'
The same point has been made by Dr John Sherman, a St Kilda practitioner, who treats a number of student drug users.
Dr Sherman has claimed that from his experience chronic cannabis users drop approximately 20 per cent on what would otherwise have been their tertiary entrance rank.
A further instance of possible harm from marijuana use has been given by Dr Michael Carr-Gregg, consultant psychologist at the Albert Road Centre for Health.
Dr Michael Carr-Gregg has given an instance of a young marijuana-smoking patient of his who became 'an aggressive, sometimes violent thief ... suffered short-term memory loss, kept potentially lethal weapons under his bed to counter friends who had become his imagined enemies, suffered sweats, nausea and vomited in the mornings.'
Dr Carr-Gregg supports drug testing in schools because he says schools should help students resist exposure to drugs.
Further implications
It seems likely that the drug testing policies proposed by three prominent Melbourne private schools will be fully implemented.
It also seems likely that once this occurs at least a number of other private schools will follow suit. One major private school is not likely to want to lose a competitive advantage to another because that school appears to have a more aggressive anti-drug policy.
It seems less likely that student drug testing will soon spread to the state school system. Schools within this system do not compete for students in the same way as do the major private schools. It is also the case that as most of those who attend state secondary colleges have limited choice as to what other schools they might attend, there could be arguments put that students attending state schools might find themselves forced to attend a school with a drug testing policy to which they were opposed.
Interestingly, also, the current state government does not support student drug testing in state schools.
In the medium term, however, it is possible that we may see much more of student drug testing in Victorian schools, state and private. This is particularly likely to happen if adolescent drug-taking continues to increase and parental pressure for action from schools and governments grows.
School-based drug testing is also likely to become more general if we follow United States' trends.
With this in mind, it will be interesting to note the fate of the current United States Supreme Court challenge to the common practice of drug-testing American high school students.
Sources
The Age
30/10/99 page 1 news item by Carolyn Jones, `Random drug tests for Geelong Grammar'
2/11/99 page 3 news item by Carolyn Jones, `Grammar drug tests assailed by rights group'
29/3/00 page 9 news item by Stephen Cauchi and Gabrielle Costa, 'Drug tests for Wesley students'
29/3/00 page 14 editorial, 'School drug tests cross the line'
2/4/00 page 1 news item by Martin Daly and Padraic, 'Students addled by pot'
2/4/00 page 10 analysis by Martin Daly and Padraic Murphy, 'Testing could have saved a boy who lost control on marijuana'
2/4/00 page 10 analysis, 'Are your children taking drugs? A parents guide'
3/4/00 page 15 comment by Simon castles, 'Drug tests would not have saved my friend'
14/4/00 page 19 comment by Tony Hewison, 'Schools fail drugs test'
19/4/00 page 10 news item by Mark Riley, 'Texas parents contest school drug tests'
The Australian
28/3/00 page 7 news item by Alison Crosweller, '"Drug user-pays" plan lets pupils sidestep expulsion'
3/4/00 page 15 comment by Norman Abrams, 'Study this before you pass tests'
The Herald Sun
2/11/99 page 18 comment by Michael Carr-Gregg, `Get real on drugs'
17/4/00 page 7 news item by Mark Dunn, 'Parents hire drug spies'