Random drug testing of schoolchildren - JRF · The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has supported this project as part of its programme of research and innovative development projects,

Random drug testing

of schoolchildren

This publication can be provided in alternative formats, suchas large print, Braille, audiotape and on disk. Please contact:Communications Department, Joseph Rowntree Foundation,The Homestead, 40 Water End, York YO30 6WP.Tel: 01904 615905. Email: [email protected]

Also available in this series

Exploring community responses to drugs

Michael Shiner, Betsy Thom and Susanne MacGregor with Dawn Gordon and Marianna

Bayley

Parental drug and alcohol misuse: Resilience and transition among young people

Angus Bancroft, Sarah Wilson, Sarah Cunningham-Burley, Kathryn Backett-Milburn and

Hugh Masters

Drug testing in the workplace: The Report of the Independent Inquiry into Drug

Testing at Work

Independent Inquiry into Drug Testing at Work

Prescribing heroin: What is the evidence?

Gerry V. Stimson and Nicky Metrebian

A growing market: The domestic cultivation of cannabis

Mike Hough, Hamish Warburton, Bradley Few, Tiggey May, Lan-Ho Man, John Witton and

Paul J. Turnbull

Times they are a-changing: Policing of cannabis

Tiggey May, Hamish Warburton, Paul J. Turnbull and Mike Hough

Random drug testing ofschoolchildrenA shot in the arm or a shot in the foot for drugprevention?

Neil McKeganey

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has supported this project as part of its programme of researchand innovative development projects, which it hopes will be of value to policy makers, practitionersand service users. The facts presented and views expressed in this report are, however, those of theauthor and not necessarily those of the Foundation.

Joseph Rowntree FoundationThe Homestead40 Water EndYork YO30 6WPWebsite: www.jrf.org.uk

© Neil McKeganey 2005

First published 2005 by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation

All rights reserved. Reproduction of this report by photocopying or electronic means for non-commercial purposes is permitted. Otherwise, no part of this report may be reproduced, adapted,stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, orotherwise without the prior written permission of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

ISBN 1 85935 282 0 (paperback)ISBN 1 85935 283 9 (pdf: available at www.jrf.org.uk)

A CIP catalogue record for this report is available from the British Library.

Cover design by Adkins Design

Prepared and printed by:York Publishing Services Ltd64 Hallfield RoadLayerthorpeYork YO31 7ZQTel: 01904 430033; Fax: 01904 430868; Website: www.yps-publishing.co.uk

Further copies of this report, or any other JRF publication, can be obtained either from the JRF website(www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/) or from our distributor, York Publishing Services Ltd, at the above address.

Contents

Acknowledgements vi

1 Introduction 1Methods 1Background 1

2 UK guidance on drug testing 4The assumptions underlying drug testing 4The evidence 7Summing up 12

3 The ethics and practicalities of school-based random drug testing 13Cost 13False positives/false negatives/storage problems 13Undermining trust 14Overreacting to non-problematic drug use 14Is it the role of the school to police young people’s drug use? 15Consent 15Labelling 16Reduction in the level of young people’s involvement in school 17Development of concealment techniques 17Switching substances and compounding the drug problem 17Observation of sample collection 18Recording information on test results 18Changing perceptions 18The attraction of a positive test result 19Disclosure of prescription medication 19Who to test? 19

4 Discussion and conclusions 20

References 23

This review was funded by a grant from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation as part of its Drug andAlcohol Research Programme. The views expressed within the review are those of the author andshould not be attributed to the funding body. I am grateful to Charlie Lloyd, Adrian King, MichaelBloor and James McIntosh for having provided helpful advice on an earlier version of this report.

Acknowledgements

vi

1

In February 2004 Prime Minister Tony Blair, inan interview with the News of the World,announced his support for randomly drugtesting pupils in UK schools: ‘We cannot forcethem to do it but if heads believe they have aproblem in their schools then they should beable to use random drug testing.’ Theannouncement of prime ministerial support fordrug testing pupils on a random basis causedgreat surprise amongst experts in the field andsome sections of the media, not least becausethere had been little prior indication that thegovernment was considering this policy. Withinthe United States, by contrast, drug-testingprogrammes have been developed across thecountry and there has been a flourishingpolitical, legal and public debate over the prosand cons of testing schoolchildren (Caulkins et

al., 2002). This report looks at the theory, theevidence, the ethics and the practicalities oftesting children in UK schools.

Methods

Preparing this report involved an initial searchof the main social science and medical databasesthrough the bibliographic databases held on theBath Information and Data System. This wascarried out using the terms ‘young people’,‘drugs’, ‘drug testing’. This identified very littlework specifically focused on drug testingstudents. An internet search on drug testingstudents identified an enormous literaturecomprising for the most part journalisticcomment on drug testing rather than reports ofresearch. However, from both of these sources itwas possible to identify key articles which werethen reviewed; these in turn led to theidentification of other articles and websites

including the www.studentdrugtesting.org sitethrough which it was possible to access anumber of key reports.

Background

Within the last five years there has been aremarkable expansion in the technology of drugtesting and in the range of materials that cannow be tested to indicate whether an individualhas used legal and illegal drugs. These materialsnow include: blood, urine, oral fluids, hair, nailsand sweat. Whilst there are no data available onthe number of schoolchildren in the UK thathave been tested for illegal drugs, the recentIndependent Inquiry into Drug Testing at Workreported that there are somewhere between220,000 and 330,000 drug tests carried out eachyear within Britain (IIDTW, 2004). The majorityof these tests occur within the employment,military and prison sectors. In the light of theincreasing prevalence of drug testing morebroadly, and the prime ministerial support fortesting UK schoolchildren, it is at least possiblethat drug testing will become an increasinglyprominent aspect of school life for many youngpeople within the UK.

Whether one regards the development ofschool-based drug-testing programmes in apositive or a negative light depends in part onhow one sees the issue of illegal drug use on thepart of young people. There can be little doubt,for example, that much of the impetus behinddrug testing has to do with the steady stream ofresearch over the last few years that hasdocumented the extent of illegal drug use on thepart of young people within the UK (Barnard et

al., 1996; Miller and Plant, 1996; Boreham andShaw, 2001; Balding, 2002). In a recent national

1 Introduction

2

Random drug testing of schoolchildren

survey of 10,000 children aged 11 to 15 carriedout by the National Centre for Social Researchand the National Foundation for EducationalResearch, 8 per cent of 11 year olds and 38 percent of 15 year olds in England had used drugsin the last year. Although cannabis was the drugmost widely used by pupils, 4 per cent of thesample reported having used a Class A drug inthe last year (NCSR/NFER, 2003).

In addition to concern at the overall level ofillegal drug use on the part of young peoplewithin the UK there has also been concern at theyoung age at which some people are starting touse illegal drugs. McKeganey and colleagues,for example, surveyed 2,318 children aged 10 to12 in Glasgow and Newcastle. Nearly a third ofthe children had been exposed to illegal drugs,almost one in ten had been offered illegal drugsand one in 20 had used illegal drugs in the past;2 per cent had done so within the last month(McKeganey et al., 2004). Whilst such surveysreport important data on the overall level ofillegal drug use on the part of young people,much of the drug use involved relates tocannabis and it is likely that only a minority ofthese children will go on to develop a pattern oflonger-term drug misuse.

Over the last few years it has also beenevident that the level of illegal drug use on thepart of young people in the UK is higher thanthat amongst many other European centres. TheEuropean Monitoring Centre for Drugs andDrug Addiction, in its 2004 report on the state ofthe drug problem in Europe (EMCDDA, 2004),summarised the results of the 1999 EuropeanSchool Survey Project on Alcohol and Drugs(ESPAD) that obtained data on lifetime cannabisuse amongst 15 to 16 year olds in a range of

European centres. In Portugal and Sweden 8 percent of 15 to 16 year olds had used cannabis inthe past, in Greece 9 per cent, in Finland 10 percent, in the Netherlands 28 per cent, in Spain 30per cent and in the UK 33 per cent.

In the face of similar levels of cannabis use tothat in the UK, the US government decided tomake cannabis an important element in its ‘waragainst [illegal] drugs’. In January 2002,following a Supreme Court ruling that random,suspicionless, drug testing was not incontravention of the Fourth Amendment,President George Bush signed into US law theNo Child Left Behind Act authorising the use offederal funds for school-based drug testing.Following that law, student drug testing hasbeen given high priority in the US NationalDrugs Control Strategy (2004):

This strategy highlights the importance of studentdrug testing, a prevention approach thataccomplishes both goals: deterring drug usewhile guiding users to needed treatment orcounselling. Student drug testing is a remarkablegrassroots tool that the Federal Government ismoving aggressively to support with researchfunding as well as support for program designand implementation. The fiscal year 2005requests $25 million for student drug testingprograms. Eight demonstration grants havealready been awarded, with prior year funding, toexpand existing programs and evaluate theeffectiveness of others … Student drug testingprograms advance the Strategy’s goal ofintervening early in the young person’s drugcareer, using research-based preventionapproaches to guide users into counselling ordrug treatment, and deterring others from starting

3

Introduction

in the first place. The purpose of random drugtesting is not to catch, punish, or expose studentswho use drugs but to prevent drug dependenceand to help drug-dependent students becomedrug-free in a confidential manner … Studentdrug testing programs work.(National Drug Control Strategy, 2004, p. 20)

The statement that ‘drug testing programswork’ and the allocation of funding totalling$25 million for such programmes gives a clearindication of the extent of political support fordrug testing within the United States. On the basisof Prime Minister Blair’s recent statements thereare indications that he too shares the view thatrandom drug testing offers a new and effectivetool in the fight against illegal drug use in the UK.

4

In 2004 the UK Department for Education andSkills issued Drugs: Guidance for Schools. Thisguidance covers, amongst other things, drugtesting and the use of sniffer dogs withinschools. In contrast to the United States whererandom drug-testing programmes are beingfederally funded, the UK guidance stresses thatthis is a matter for the determination of localschool heads. The guidance states that whereschools are considering testing pupils, attentionshould be given as to whether this:

• is consistent with the pastoralresponsibility of the school to create asupportive environment

• is culturally sensitive

• may lead to labelling certain pupils

• will result in appropriate support beingoffered to pupils

• is a feasible and effective use of schoolresources.

The guidance stresses further that wheresuch programmes are being considered thisshould be made explicit in school policies, andfurther that these policies should have beendeveloped in consultation with parents, pupils,staff and governors. The guidance from theDepartment, although not critical of drugtesting, can hardly be seen as a ringingendorsement of such programmes. Beforelooking at the evidence on drug testing it maybe helpful to look at the assumptionsunderlying drug testing and its application toyoung people.

The assumptions underlying drug testing

There are three theories or sets of assumptionsunderlying random drug testing. The first ofthese is a criminological theory about the powerof surveillance, the second is about theimportance of early identification andintervention, and the third is about the capacityto bolster young people’s resistance to illegaldrugs.

With regard to surveillance it is possible tosee drug testing as a form of surveillance.Through being able to enquire into the moreprivate areas of young people’s lives, drugtesting makes young people’s drug use a ‘public’rather than a ‘private’ matter and in so doing,according to the theory, reduces the likelihood ofits occurrence. The idea of surveillance as a toolof social control was noted by Jeremy Bentham inhis design for the model prison (the Panopticon)in which prisoners were accommodated in aserious of wings arranged like spokes around acentral observatory hub. Prison staff couldobserve prisoners without themselves beingobserved. By creating an environment where thepotential for surveillance was ever present, it wasassumed that prisoners would desist from theirdeviant acts and ultimately be reformed(Foucault, 1977, 1980).

On its own, though, surveillance is aninadequate tool of social control unless it isassociated with three further elements. The firstof these is the degree of social consensus as towhat constitutes socially transgressive behaviour,second is the degree to which the system ofsurveillance is associated with the capacity toapply some kind of negative sanction orpunishment, and third is the capacity of thesurveillance system to tackle concealment. In the

2 UK guidance on drug testing

5

UK guidance on drug testing

case of the first of these, drug testing is onlylikely to reduce the prevalence of illegal drug useto the extent that young people share the viewthat they would experience some kind of stigmain the event of their drug use becoming knownabout. Stigma is very much a matter ofindividual and group variation such that whilstone individual might place considerable weighton the views of others, another individual mightbe more inclined to disregard the views of otherpeople and thereby disregard the power ofsurveillance. For example, those young peoplewho have developed strong pro-drug attitudes,or who may have rejected other aspects ofsocietal norms, may be rather less likely to beinfluenced by the fact that somebody else maybecome aware of their drug use as a result of adrug-testing regime. Indeed some young peoplemay even derive kudos from having failed adrug test.

Drug testing may be more effective in relationto those young people who have not yet startedto use illegal drugs, or who have used drugs ononly a small number of occasions, than thoseyoung people who perceive drug use assomething that is positive and desirable. Sincethese latter young people may be at greater riskof developing a pattern of longer-term drug useit could be argued that drug testing is likely to beleast effective in relation to those who are ingreatest need of help and support.

Second, the degree to which young peopleare likely to be influenced by a drug-testingprogramme is also likely to be influenced by theresponse to a positive test. Within a situation inwhich a positive drug test is not seen asbringing forth a negative sanction (exclusionfrom school or some valued element of theschool programme, negative comment from

parents, etc.) it is difficult to see how the testingprogramme itself could act as a deterrent. In thecase of testing programmes targeted on adultathletes the punishment element of theprogramme is very clear in the exclusion of theindividual from competition. In the case ofschool-based drug testing it is rather less clearwhat the punishment element of failing a drugtest would be. Whilst it is often pointed out thatone of the benefits of drug testing is the capacityto target support services on those youngpeople who have started to use illegal drugs,counselling and support services are unlikely tobe seen as a form of punishment. A programmeof random drug testing would have to containsome additional element of punishment for thetesting regime itself to be efficacious.

The third element has to do with the fact thatwhilst systems of surveillance can be seen aspowerful tools of social control they are alsovery often subject to sophisticated means ofconcealment on the part of those being watched(Bloor and McIntosh, 1990). In the case of illegaldrug use such concealment may involve the useof masking agents to undermine the accuracy ofthe testing procedures, the avoidance ofproviding a sample or the use of drugs that areharder to detect. One of the consequences of atesting programme may be the use ofincreasingly sophisticated means of concealingone’s drug use from the view of others.

The second theory underpinning drug-testing programmes has to do with the assumedbenefits of early intervention and screening. Thebelief here is that by applying some kind ofscreening tool to a population it is possible toidentify problems at a much earlier stage thanwould otherwise be possible and to reduce thelikelihood of the problem developing:

6


Student drug testing programs advance theStrategy’s goal of intervening early in the youngperson’s drug career, using research-basedprevention approaches to guide users intocounselling or drug treatment and deterringothers from starting in the first place.(US National Drug Control Strategy, 2004, p. 13)

Whilst the theory of early identification andintervention makes clear sense where one istalking about particular health problems, forexample cancer, where there is a perceivedinevitable worsening of the condition the longerit remains hidden, it would be somewhatsimplistic to present teenage drug use in similarterms. As stated earlier most teenage drug useinvolves cannabis and most teenage drug usersdo not go on to develop a pattern of long-termproblematic drug use. A key question therefore iswhether drug testing can identify thoseindividuals who are at greater risk of developinga pattern of more problematic drug use. Theanswer to this question depends in part on thenature of the drug-testing regime that is beingapplied. If the testing programme involves allpupils (irrespective of whether they aresuspected of having used illegal drugs) and issupplemented with detailed interviewing ofthose pupils testing positive, there is thepossibility of identifying those young peoplewho are at greatest risk of developing longer-term problems associated with their drug useand of helping them accordingly. However, ifwhat is being proposed is the development of aprogramme of random testing then the benefitsof early identification will only apply to the smallnumber of pupils who are called for testing andwhose drug use is identified as a result.

The third theory underpinning randomdrug-testing programmes involves a set of

assumptions about young people’s routes intoillegal drug use. It has been suggested that byinitiating a programme of random drug testingit is possible to bolster young people’s resistanceto illegal drug use. Thus in the US NationalDrug Control Strategy it is stated that:

The psychology behind student drug testingprograms is straightforward. ‘They give kids an“out”,’ Brady says [one of the pioneers ofstudent drug testing]. ‘Kids will tell you that theprogram gives them a reason to say no. They’rejust kids, after all, they need a crutch. Being ableto say “I’m a cheerleader, I’m in the band, I’m afootball player and my school drug tests” – itreally gives them some tools to be able to sayno’.(National Drug Control Strategy, 2004, p. 14)

The view of teenage drug use here is one ofyoung people being drawn into a pattern of useas a result of the actions of their peers andothers around them. However, the idea ofyoung people being pressured into using illegaldrugs by those around them has beencomprehensively questioned by research whichhas identified instead the volitional element ofmuch teenage drug use (Sheppard et al., 1985;Bauman and Ennet, 1996). From this perspectivepeer selection (young people choosing friendswhom they see as attractive and whom theymay wish to be like), curiosity or an interest indrugs are seen as offering a more adequateexplanation of teenage drug use than peerpressure. In a qualitative study which followeda sample of 12 year olds in Glasgow over a two-year period, McIntosh and colleagues foundthat at the youngest age children were indeedfearful that their peers might pressure them intousing illegal drugs. However, as the children

7


increased in age, those who went on to useillegal drugs described their drug use as havingoccurred largely as a result of their owngrowing curiosity about, and interest in, illegaldrugs. Peer pressure then seemed to have adiminishing influence on young people as theymoved from their pre-teens to their teens(McIntosh et al., 2004).

It would seem that the capacity of a drug-testing programme to influence young people’sdrug use in relation to illegal drugs probablyhas more to do with young people’s belief aboutthe likelihood of their drug use being identifiedthan it does either with the capacity of theprogramme to provide a convenient way ofturning down unwelcome drug offers or withtargeting help. In the next section we look at theevidence in relation to student drug testing.

The evidence

In reviewing the evidence on school-based drug-testing programmes, it is important to make threekey points. First, there has been surprisingly littleevaluative research published on the impact ofsuch programmes. Second, the evidence base,such as it is, contains studies that are a long wayfrom the methodological gold standard ofindependent, rigorous research, published inpeer-reviewed journals. Third, much of theevidence that is available relates to the UnitedStates where student drug testing was initiallytargeted on athletes, and then expanded toinclude students participating in extra-curricularactivities and students more broadly.

Introducing drug testing in schools

DuPont and colleagues (2002) have provided auseful profile of a range of testing programmes

within US schools. In their report Elements of a

Successful School-Based Student Drug Testing

Program the authors provide a detailed accountof the testing programme in nine US schoolswhich have had long-running testingprogrammes. The research team describe thenature of the programmes developed, the typeof drug testing undertaken and theconsequences for the individual of submitting apositive drug sample. All of the schoolsparticipating in this research had formal writtenpolicies covering their drug-testingprogrammes, and all of the testing programmes,it is claimed, enjoyed considerable support fromtheir local communities. Schools emphasisedthat their drug-testing activities were part of acomprehensive programme to prevent the useof alcohol, tobacco and other drugs amongststudents. Although none of the schools referredindividuals (including those who providedrepeated positive tests) to law enforcementagencies, there was considerable variationbetween schools in the consequences of testingpositive for illegal drugs. Some schoolssuspended the student for varying lengths oftime from participating in extra-curricularactivities, some suspended student parkingprivileges, most informed parents and mostrequired students to attend some form ofcounselling and follow-up testing. One of theschools, however, expelled pupils testingpositive on more than a single occasion.

Mason (2003) undertook PhD researchlooking at high school student attitudes towardsdrug testing within a school in New Orleansthat has been testing pupils for the last fiveyears. In total 620 pupils were surveyed. Thisresearch identified that, in the main, studentswere fairly neutral in their attitudes towards

8


drug testing, neither being strongly in favournor strongly critical of it. There were someindications that as children increased in agethey were less positive towards the idea of drugtesting (the youngest pupils were more positivethan the older pupils), females were slightlymore positive about drug testing than malesand students were more critical of testing foralcohol than for illegal drugs (the authorsuggests that this may be as a result of morepupils using alcohol). Finally, this study showedthat self-reported drug use was negativelyrelated to acceptance of drug testing – thosestudents who were more critical of illegal druguse, and who had not used illegal drugs, weremore likely to be supportive of drug testingthan those pupils who had more pro-drugattitudes and experiences (Mason, 2003). On thebasis of this research Mason encourages schoolsto involve students in any discussions aroundsetting up a testing programme, and suggeststhat through building a consensus betweenpupils, staff and parents, testing programmeswill be that much more effective. This adviceechoes that found within the Department forEducation and Skills on the importance ofinvolving the whole school community indiscussions around drug testing where this isbeing considered.

Evaluating the impact of drug testing in

schools

In the National Drug Control Strategyconsiderable prominence is given to the resultsof the drug-testing programme developed at theHunterdon Central Regional High School inNew Jersey. In this school pupils completed ananonymous survey in the years 1997, 1999 and2002. These years covered the time period

during which a random drug-testingprogramme was implemented, temporarilysuspended as a result of a court action initiatedby the American Civil Liberties Union, andsubsequently reinstated following a successfuldefence of the action. Lisa Brady, principal ofHunterdon Regional High, has produced a shortreport on the results of this survey published bythe Student Drug Testing Coalition (Edwardsand Student Drug Testing Coalition, 2004).Whilst Hunterdon Regional High had some2,600 students over this period, the publishedresults of this survey do not report the precisenumber of pupils completing the questionnairein each year, or the number of pupils absent onthe days of data collection. Similarly, noinformation was available on the circumstanceswithin which data were collected: for example,it was not evident whether school staffsupervised and collected completedquestionnaires or whether this was done by anoutside agency.

In analysing the results of this surveyrespondents were divided by age group and bythe level of risk associated with their drug use(multi-drug users, stimulant users and heavymarijuana users were defined as level one (highrisk); occasional drug users and light marijuanausers were defined as level two (moderate risk);those who had tried a drug but had no currentuse and those whose use was negligible or whoreported no use were defined as level three (lowrisk). In terms of the results of this research justover 1 per cent of ninth-grade children in 1996/7 were classified as multi-drug users; thisdecreased during the period of drug testing tojust under 1 per cent and then increased to 3 percent in 2002/3 during the period when testingwas suspended. Similarly, 15 per cent of ninth

9


graders were defined as occasional drug usersin 1996/7 prior to the introduction of testing;this figure decreased to 5 per cent during theperiod of testing and rose to just over 5 per centduring the period that testing was suspended.Similar differences are reported for tenth,eleventh and twelfth graders. Amongst thetwelfth graders, 7 per cent were classified asmulti-drug users in 1996/7; this decreased to 3per cent during the period 1999/2000 whilst thetesting regime was in place and increased to 10per cent in 2002/3 when the testing programmewas suspended. In the case of heavy marijuanausers there were 4 per cent of twelfth graders inthis category in 1996/7 in advance of the testingprogramme; this figure decreased to 2 per centduring the period of drug testing and to 1 percent in the period covered by the suspension ofthe programme in 2002/3. With regard to lightmarijuana use this was measured at 14 per centof twelfth graders in 1996/7, decreasing to justunder 14 per cent during the period of thetesting programme and then increasing in theperiod when the programme was suspended to16 per cent.

The data within the Hunterdon report havebeen widely cited (including within the USNational Drug Control Strategy, 2004) asevidence that student drug testing works. In factit is impossible to attribute the various changesin reported drug use to the effects of the drug-testing programme. At minimum it would benecessary to have comparable data, over similartime periods, from similarly circumstancedschools. It is also evident from the data that insome cases marijuana use decreased also duringthe period when the testing programme wassuspended. In addition, one would have toquestion the reliability of self-reported data

where this is being collected, possibly by schoolstaff, within the context of a drug-testingprogramme. Finally, since there are no tests ofstatistical significance included within thereport it is impossible to comment on thesignificance of the changes in drug useidentified.

Research on student drug testing has alsobeen reported by Joseph McKinney, Professor ofEducational Leadership at Ball State University.Like Lisa Brady, from Hunterdon RegionalHigh, McKinney is a member of the StudentDrug Testing Coalition and in that capacity is anadvocate for student drug testing. He hasproduced a series of short papers looking at theeffectiveness and the legality of student drugtesting. In one report McKinney outlines theviews of 83 school principals with regard totheir experience of drug testing. He reports that85 per cent of the principals surveyed felt thatdrug usage amongst their students hadincreased at the point at which their own drug-testing programme had ceased, and that 89 percent of principals said that they believed thatstudent drug testing undermined the effects ofpeer pressure by providing young people with areason to decline the offer of illegal drugs. Onthe basis of these results McKinney concludesthat:

Random drug testing policies appear to provide astrong tool for schools to use in the battle toreduce alcohol and drug usage amongst teens.Yet, there are several legal, financial, educationaland privacy issues that must be considered byschools that want to implement or continuerandom drug testing policies. Whilst the legaldebate will continue over drug testing in schoolsthis study does show that random testing policies

10


are effective in reducing the temptation to usedrugs and alcohol.(McKinney, 2004a, p. 4)

Despite the clear support for drug testing inthis report there is simply no way that schoolprincipals’ views about the level of drug use intheir school can be cited as evidence of theeffectiveness of a testing programme to reduceteenage drug use. Indeed the very existence of atesting programme is presumably premised onthe belief that school staff do not know whichpupils are using which illegal drug. Thus it isdifficult to see how school principals’ views onthis matter can be regarded as a validassessment of students’ actual drug use.

In another paper McKinney reportssummary data from the student drug-testingprogrammes in Columbus, Ohio (McKinney,2004b). This research compared one school witha testing programme and one school withoutsuch a programme. The author points out thatthe school with a testing programme had lowerlevels of expulsions and suspensions due todrugs, alcohol and weapons, that the testingschool scored higher than the state average ingraduation rates and state-mandated tests, andthat marijuana use was significantly lower. Theauthor also points out that pupils in the schoolwith drug testing felt safer, were moredisapproving about smoking marijuana, andwere less likely to use inhalants, tranquillisersand amphetamines. Again, however, it is verydifficult to regard such statements as proof ofthe effectiveness of drug-testing programmes inreducing drug use or changing students’attitudes. The study contains insufficientinformation about the two schools includedwithin the comparison (the existence of otherpossible differences between the schools) or

indeed about the profile of the school inadvance of the programme of student drugtesting having been initiated.

One of the most promising studiesevaluating the impact of school-based randomdrug-testing programmes was the SATURNresearch (Student Athlete Random NotificationStudy) initiated by the University of Oregon in1999. Preliminary results of this study werepublished in 2003 and have been widely citedthereafter. This is an important study, not leastbecause, as the authors point out:

There have been no prospective controlledstudies to substantiate the prevention efficacy ofbiological testing programs.(Goldberg et al., 2003, p. 14)

The aim of this study was to identify theeffect of random drug testing among high schoolathletes by comparing two schools, one with atesting programme and one without. Pupilswithin both schools completed a questionnaire atthe start and end of the school year (pupils hadan average age of 15). According to the authors ofthis report, 30-day illicit drug use for athletes inthe drug-testing school decreased, whereasmonthly use amongst student athletes in the non-testing school increased from the beginning ofthe school year to the end of the year. Theauthors of this research also point out that therewas a larger reduction in positive attitudestowards school on the part of those in the drug-testing school compared to those in the controlgroup. This suggests that the drug-testingprogramme may have had an adverse impact onstudents’ attitudes towards school. The authorsof this study offer cautious conclusions as to thepossible benefits of random drug testing withinschools:

11


A policy of random drug testing surveillanceappears to have significantly reduced recent druguse amongst adolescent athletes … A largerrandomized study extending over several years isnecessary to establish drug prevention efficacy.(Goldberg et al., 2003, p. 15)

It is important to underline that thecomparison here is only between two schools.Any systematic evaluation of the impact ofstudent drug testing would have to include asignificant number of schools to control forpossible differences between schools and itwould have to be extended beyond those takingpart in school sports. Despite the clear need forfurther research this study was terminated in2004 by the US Office for Human ResearchProtections (Department of Health and HumanServices, 2004).

One of the largest studies seeking to identifythe possible impact of school-based drug-testingprogrammes utilised data from the nationallyrepresentative Monitoring the Future survey ofyoung people in the USA to identify whetherstudents attending schools with a drug-testingprogramme reported lower levels of illegal druguse compared to students attending schoolswithout a testing programme (Yamaguchi et al.,2003). The results of this research received bothacademic publishing and widespread mediacoverage within the United States (‘Study findsno sign that testing deters student drug use’, New

York Times, 17 May 2003). This study alsoreceived prominent attention in a report on drugtesting from the American Civil Liberties Unionand the Drug Policy Alliance (Gunja et al., 2004).The researchers on this study reported that:

… among the eighth, 10th and 12th gradestudents surveyed in this study school drug

testing was not associated with either theprevalence or the frequency of student marijuanause or of other illicit drug use. Nor was drugtesting of athletes associated with lower thanaverage marijuana use and other illicit drug use byhigh school male athletes. Even among thosewho identified themselves as fairly experiencedmarijuana users drug testing also was notassociated with either the prevalence or thefrequency of marijuana or other illicit drug use.(Yamaguchi et al., 2003, p. 164)

On the basis of these results the authors of thispaper concluded that:

… drug testing in schools may not provide apanacea for reducing drug use that some(including some on the Supreme Court) hadhoped. Research has shown that the strongestpredictor of student drug use is students’attitudes towards drug use and perceptions ofpeers. To prevent harmful student behaviors suchas drug use, school policies that address thesekey values, attitudes and perceptions may provemore important in drug prevention than drugtesting.(Yamaguchi et al., 2003, p. 164)

As one might have anticipated, the results ofthis research have been disputed by those infavour of student drug testing. Robert DuPont, aformer director of the National Institute onDrug Abuse and member of the Student DrugTesting Coalition, has commented that in failingto differentiate between schools in the natureand extent of their drug-testing programme, theYamaguchi study is equivalent to:

… taking a sample of all of the patients in thecountry over a year, who took one dose of a bloodpressure medicine, compared to patients who

12


took no medicine, and finding no difference in theblood pressure of the two groups, and concludingthat antihypertensive treatments do not work.(DuPont, 2003, p. 3)

DuPont goes on to argue that what is neededis a:

… controlled study comparing student drug userates in schools using several different,adequately implemented, student drug testingapproaches with schools that do not do studentdrug testing whilst both groups of schools usestandard drug education approaches. A welldesigned study would not only show whetherdrug testing works to reduce student drug use,but it would show which of the several differentapproaches to student drug testing is the mostcost effective.(DuPont, 2003, p. 3)

Summing up

It is a matter of concern that student drugtesting has been widely developed within theUSA and may conceivably be so within the UK(given the prime ministerial support) on thebasis of the slimmest available researchevidence. However, the drug prevention field isnot alone in embracing initiatives on the basisthat they seem promising rather than that theyhave been subjected to rigorous andindependent evaluation. Mark Chaffin, forexample, has noted much the same in relation tothe use of home-visiting programmes aimed atreducing child sexual abuse:

Across much of the child abuse prevention field,there is no randomized trial data on whetherhome visiting interventions actually deliver their

intended bottom-line benefits, namely, preventingfuture abuse or neglect. Like dietary supplementsand herbal remedies, unqualified claims that‘prevention works’ are loosely made andsometimes widely accepted, but supported onlywith the weakest sorts of program evaluationdata based either on no group comparisons or oncomparisons of completers versus drop-outs orself selected enrolees versus non-enrolees. Toooften the field has grasped at anything new andhopeful, taking intervention models directly fromprototype to large-scale implementation, withoutthe difficult and time-consuming intermediatesteps involved in careful controlled field testing …Once taken to scale, once institutionalized andheavily funded, and once imbued with a sense ofmission and mass commitment, programs takeon lives of their own and subsequent hard data onprogram effectiveness are welcomed only if thenews is good.(Chaffin, 2004, pp. 591–2)

Within the UK, the importance ofdeveloping initiatives on the basis of clearevidence of what works has been underlinedwithin the drug strategy and in a host of othergovernment documents. It is surprising, giventhat commitment, how few initiatives within thedrugs field have been subjected to rigorous andindependent evaluation. The belief seems to bethat it takes too long to undertake the necessaryresearch to guide service development.Preventing drug abuse, however, is a topic thatis too important to be guided by anything butthe best research. Where it is guided by politicalviewpoint or lobby support this is somethingthat should concern us all. In the next chapterwe look at some of the ethical and practicalissues to do with student drug testing.

13

In considering the ethics of random drug testingit is important to underline the fact that thereview is focused upon random, suspicionless,testing rather than testing those pupils who aresuspected of having used illegal drugs, or whoare found in possession of illegal drugs. It wasthis element of suspicionless testing that wasinitially felt to violate the Fourth Amendment ofthe United States constitution. The FourthAmendment ruled that individuals, and theirproperty, could only be searched by lawenforcement officers and others on the basis ofevidence that a crime had been committed(probable cause). Random drug testing waschallenged within the US courts as entailing aviolation of these rights. In 2002 the USSupreme Court ruled that this was not the caseand that schools had the right to initiateprogrammes of random drug testing as a way ofprotecting young people from the dangers ofillegal drugs.

Cost

As is mentioned in the guidance on drug testingprovided by the Department for Education andSkills, school staff would need to considerwhether the cost of a drug-testing programme isan appropriate use of school resources. The costof testing samples for the presence of illegaldrugs varies considerably depending upon themedium that is being employed (blood, urine,hair, nails, sweat, oral fluid etc.), the number ofsamples that are being tested, the range of drugsthat are being tested for and the proportion ofpositive samples identified. This latter is avariable cost because most drug testing includes

two levels of analysis with samples initiallyanalysed for any indication of possible drug use(indicative testing) and those samples thatappear to be positive analysed in greater detailto confirm the presence of illegal drugs(confirmatory testing). Confirmatory testing ismore costly than indicative testing and thus thecost of the testing programme will varydepending on the number of positive testsidentified.

The recent Independent Inquiry into DrugTesting at Work noted the lack of clear anddetailed information on the costs of drugtesting, although the report included astatement from one of the leading UK drug-testing companies that it charged between £30and £35 for an initial test and £52 for aconfirmatory test (IIDTW, 2004). Robert DuPontand colleagues have commented that the annualcost of the school testing programme rangedfrom $1,500 to $36,000 per school (DuPont et al.,2002). The fact that, within the UK, testingprogrammes will need to be funded from withina school’s existing budget means that schoolheads, governors and parent teacherassociations will need to form a view as towhether this is a justifiable use of scarceresources.

False positives/false negatives/storage

problems

Whilst it is important in any drug-testingprogramme to undertake indicative andconfirmatory analysis, the testing proceduresthemselves are not 100 per cent accurate. Thusthere is a small likelihood that an individual

3 The ethics and practicalities of school-

based random drug testing

14


may test positive when in fact no illegal drugshave been used or test negative when illegaldrugs have been used (Cohen, 1990; Newton,1999; Lawler, 2000). Similarly, all testingprogrammes need to have a system for storingsamples and test results in secure conditions.This may be hard to implement within a schoolsetting, yet unless schools are able to guaranteethe security of such systems it is likely thatyoung people or their parents will dispute testresults.

Undermining trust

One possible adverse outcome of a schoolinstituting a drug-testing programme is theundermining of the trust that one wouldordinarily wish to see between staff andstudents in an educational setting. The fact thatthe Goldberg study found more negativeattitudes towards school on the part of thosepupils included within a testing programmesuggests that the undermining of trust may wellbe something that school staff need to payattention to if such programmes are beingconsidered. The worry, of course, would be thatany such undermining of trust could impactnegatively on other aspects of young people’seducational work, including drug education.

The development of a testing programmemight also have an adverse impact on students’willingness to report the details of their druguse. Whilst it might be assumed that drugtesting is much less reliant on individuals self-reporting the details of their drug use, in factthose who test positive will almost certainlythen be asked to provide more detailedinformation on the nature of their drug use,how frequently they have used drugs, in what

contexts and with which other people present.The success of random drug testing will dependin part on encouraging individuals to report thedetails of their drug use and yet individuals’willingness to do so may be compromised as aresult of the testing regime. Similarly,individuals’ willingness to become involvedwith counselling services (as many schools inthe USA require of those who test positive) andthe level of trust pupils have in working withsuch drug counsellors, may be undermined bythe coercive nature of the testing programmewhich has identified their drug use.

Overreacting to non-problematic drug use

Most definitions of what constitutes problematicor less problematic drug use take account ofsuch factors as the age of the individual usingthe drug(s), the types and quantities of drugsinvolved, the method by which the drug mayhave been used, e.g. smoking or injection, thefrequency with which the drug use has takenplace, the individual’s motive for using thedrugs and the context within which the drugswere used. By and large, most drug testing isdesigned to reveal what drugs were used (andto a lesser extent when the drug use occurred)rather than these more finely tuned aspects. Toobtain more detailed information with which toform a view as to the nature and extent of anyproblematic drug use, it would generally benecessary to interview the young personinvolved and to get them to give a much fulleraccount of their drug use. However, the fact thatthe drug use may have been low level andepisodic may be somewhat eclipsed by the sheerfact of the young person having submitted apositive drug test. School staff, parents and

15

The ethics and practicalities of school-based random drug testing

carers may find themselves responding to thefact of the drug test rather than the youngperson’s own needs and in this sense may runthe risk of overreacting to what may in fact be aone-off incident.

There will, of course, be those who say thatwhen it comes to young people and illegaldrugs, any use – no matter what substances orfrequencies are involved – is problematic.Equally, there will be those who say that somelevel of drug experimentation is a normal partof growing up for many teenagers. How adultsrespond to a positive test result is likely to beshaped by such views, giving rise to thepossibility that a positive test for cannabis inone school may be responded to very differentlyby staff in another school. There could, then, beconsiderable inequity in the way in which apositive drug test may impinge on students’education.

Is it the role of the school to police young

people’s drug use?

Whilst there will be little doubt that the primaryrole of the school is to educate young people,there is likely to be considerable disagreementas to whether the school should take on the roleof policing young people’s drug use. There willbe those who say that, given the dangers ofillegal drugs to the user and to society, it isentirely appropriate for schools to take on thisrole and to do all they can to minimise thelikelihood of young people using illegal drugs.However, even where it is accepted that schoolsshould present a morally rooted view of illegaldrug use, there may still be doubt as to whetherit is appropriate for school staff to actively seekout the details of young people’s drug use,

especially where this may have occurredoutwith the school. Many teachers may regard itas an unwelcome extension of their powers ofsurveillance to be monitoring children’s leisureand family life through the means of drugtesting and many may be reluctant to take thison.

Consent

Whilst it has been reported within the USA thatrandom drug testing has attracted considerablesupport from parents, nevertheless a number ofthe legal actions that have been initiated withinthe USA against random drug testing have beeninstigated by parents questioning the right ofthe school to test their child. Parents are by nomeans universally supportive of drug testing.Indeed it is possible that, as testing kits becomeincreasingly available for use within the home,even those parents who are supportive of theidea of drug testing may decide that they wouldprefer to do this in their own home rather thanhave it done in the school with all of theimplications that this would entail.

Any programme of school-based drugtesting is going to have to consider what to dowhere parents or young people withhold theirconsent. Clearly any random testing programmecan only be effective to the extent that pupilshave an equal likelihood of being tested. Wherea significant number of parents or pupilswithhold consent, the concern may well be thatthose young people and their parents who haveconsented to the testing are effectively beingpenalised as a result of the increased likelihoodof being tested.

Similarly, if schools are going to insist uponyoung people’s involvement in a testing

16


programme they are going to have to considerwhat level of compulsion (and punishment) tobring to bear upon those students who do notconsent to being tested. This issue could befurther complicated where a young person isprepared to be tested but where his or herparent refuses permission for the testing to goahead. Within such circumstances school staffmay feel that it is unfair to punish the youngperson for a decision taken by their parent(s).However, at least one of the schools within theDuPont et al. review took a very different view:

If a parent or guardian refuses to allow the test tobe administered to his/her child, a disciplinaryaction will be recommended as if the test werepositive.(DuPont et al., 2002, p. 48)

Whilst some staff may feel that it would beappropriate to suspend a pupil who refuses toparticipate in a testing programme, such ameasure could mean that one was potentiallydamaging a young person’s education not onthe basis of something they have been proved tohave done (used illegal drugs) but on the basisof something that they had not done (failed toco-operate with a testing programme that mayhave been imposed upon them). From theperspective of those promoting testing, thecapacity to insist upon pupils’ participation andthe need to punish those who withhold theirconsent may be seen as important parts ofensuring the integrity of the testing programme.From a children’s rights perspective, bycontrast, the coercive element of a testingprogramme, and the willingness to punish thosepupils who do not agree to be tested, may beregarded as entirely unwelcome. It is difficult to

square this level of compulsion, and theassumption of guilt where consent is withheld,with several of the articles in the UNConvention on the Rights of the Child, forexample:

No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawfulinterference with his or her privacy, family orcorrespondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his orher honour and reputation.(Article 16)

States Parties recognize the right of every childalleged as, accused of, or recognized as havinginfringed the penal law to be treated in a mannerconsistent with the promotion of the child’s senseof dignity and worth … [Children have the rightnot] to be compelled to give testimony … [but to]have his or her privacy fully respected.(Article 40)

Labelling

As a result of identifying a child as having usedan illegal drug there is a danger that the positivedrug test itself may lead to a more generallabelling of the child as ‘deviant’, ‘difficult’,‘immoral’ or ‘criminal’ with a consequentadverse impact on his or her educationalperformance. Clearly this will depend in part onthe question of how widely the results of apositive test result are shared. To the extent thata positive test may have been produced by asingle episode of drug usage it is possible that achild may be labelled as ‘difficult’ or a ‘druguser’ on the basis of an activity that may noteven have reoccurred.

17


Reduction in the level of young people’s

involvement in school

As a result of a school initiating a programme ofrandom drug testing there may be a reductionin the involvement in school activities on thepart of some pupils. There are two ways inwhich this could happen. First, as a result offailing a drug test the school may insist on thepupil being suspended from either the wholeschool programme or some element of it.Second, some young people may decrease theirinvolvement in school (attending less frequentlyor not participating in extra-curricular activities)as a way of reducing their own likelihood ofbeing tested. Such a reduction in involvementwithin school on the part of some pupils wouldbe highly regrettable given the finding fromresearch that a lack of involvement in school isone of the factors associated with an increasedlikelihood of young people using illegal drugsand developing a pattern of more problematicdrug use (Rhodes et al., 2003).

Development of concealment techniques

As has already been mentioned, one of theconsequences of increasing surveillance is thedevelopment of techniques of concealment onthe part of those who do not wish to have theirbehaviour monitored. Bloor and colleagues(2001) have described the various ways in whichstaff on merchant ships sought to reduce theeffectiveness of the random testing procedureson ship by anticipating when the testers werelikely to come on board and scheduling theirdrinking accordingly. In the case of elite athletetesting the methods of concealment include anarray of masking agents which are designed to

undermine the ability of testing procedures toidentify which drugs an individual may haveused. Indeed in this context there is a constantwar between, on the one side, the increasinglysophisticated methods of drug detection and, onthe other side, the increasingly sophisticatedmeans of masking the presence of the drugs anathlete may have used.

Concealment techniques also includeattempts to substitute samples (e.g. providing asample of drug free urine in place of one’s ownsample) or seeking to tamper with a sample in away which would break the chain of custodythrough which the sample has been collectedand stored, thereby invalidating the test results.Whilst it may be thought unlikely that mostyoung people would have the resources toembark on any such sophisticated methods ofconcealment, it is already the case thatinformation and products are available throughthe internet to undermine the accuracy of suchdrug testing. Mills (2004) has described themarket in clean urine that developed in hisschool once it instigated a drug-testingprogramme.

Switching substances and compounding

the drug problem

Whilst cannabis use is detectable within thebody for up to three weeks, heroin is detectableon the basis of urine testing for only a matter ofdays. As a result there must be a concern thatsome individuals may switch to usingsubstances that are harder to detect but whichcarry greater risk for the individual. DuPontand colleagues identified such drug-switchingbehaviour in their review of US testingprogrammes:

18


The program is believed to be effective inreducing student drug use since there have beenfew, if any, positive drug test results. Studentsunderstand the limits and, for the most part,accept them. Alcohol, however, has become thedrug of choice among athletes because of itscommunity acceptance and short-term tracking.(DuPont et al., 2004, p. 53)

Such a development would be ofconsiderable concern given the short- and long-term harm associated with excessive alcoholconsumption. This is an issue that would needto be given particular attention in anyevaluation of student drug testing.

Observation of sample collection

It is widely accepted in the case of criminaljustice drug testing that it is important towitness the provision of samples so as to ensurethat the sample being analysed does indeedrelate to the person being tested. In the case of aurine sample this may entail witnessing theprovision of a sample or attaching atemperature strip to the sample to ensure thatthe urine being produced is within the range ofnormal body temperature and has not beenstored outside of the body. Clearly some of themethods for ensuring the authenticity ofsamples involve a reduction in individuals’privacy. Any school considering developing adrug-testing programme is going to need togive careful consideration to what level ofobservation (if any) they would wish to apply tothe process of sample collection, and will needto balance the requirements of a rigorous testingregime with the pupils’ own expectationsregarding personal privacy. Schools will also

need to consider whether an imposed testingregime is congruent with the principles of theEuropean Convention on Human Rights and theUnited Nations Charter on the rights of thechild.

Recording information on test results

Given the fact that schools will need todifferentiate between a first positive test andany subsequent positive test it will be necessaryto store information relating to individual testresults. Clearly, school staff, parents, governorsand indeed pupils will need to know who willhave access to the information relating to thesetest results as well as the conditions underwhich this information will be stored. It cannotbe assumed that there will be an immediateconsensus between all of the parties involvedwith regard to these issues.

Changing perceptions

In situations where drug testing is beingtargeted on those individuals who are thoughtto have used illegal drugs, there is a cleardivision between the majority of young people(who are thought to be drug free) and the smallnumber of individuals who are being tested(who are thought to have used illegal drugs). Ina situation where schools are developingprogrammes of random, suspicionless, testingthe reverse is the case. In this scenario all youngpeople within the age groups being tested arecast in the role of potential drug users. Whilstthis may seem a small shift in perception on thepart of those designing a testing programme, itcould be a significant shift in perception on thepart of those young people who may have never

19


thought of themselves as potential drug users.In this sense, the testing regime may actuallymake illegal drugs more salient for somechildren than it would otherwise be.

The attraction of a positive test result

Whilst those designing and implementing adrug testing regime would perceive a positivedrug test as being unwelcome, one cannotassume that this will be the case for allindividuals in all circumstances. It may be thatsome young people would actually welcome apositive test result as an indication of theirstatus in the eyes of some of their peers. In theevent that this were to occur one could findoneself in a position where the drug-testingprogramme itself had given rise to the verybehaviour which the programme was designedto reduce.

Disclosure of prescription medication

Most drug-testing systems require participantsto reveal the details of any prescriptionmedication they may be taking. This isimportant because some prescription medicinesproduce the same metabolites within the bodyas some illegal drugs and as a result it isimportant to be able to discount these drugs inthe process of analysing submitted samples.Where pupils are consuming prescribedmedication within schools (authorised drug use)there is a clear need to explain to school staff thenature of the medication being consumed.However, where a testing programme is in placethere will be a need for pupils to provide thedetails of all authorised medication they are

taking (both those which are being consumedwithin the school and those which are beingconsumed outside of the school). In doing so theyoung person will in effect be being asked toreveal the details of the condition they are beingtreated for, thereby breaking the confidentialityof the medical consultation which resulted intheir prescription. Whilst there are manymedical conditions where this would notnecessarily be seen as a problem there are othercircumstances where the requirement to providethe details of prescribed medication would behighly sensitive and unwelcome.

Who to test?

Within the United States much of the impetusbehind drug testing has come from theaspiration of creating drug-free schools. Fromwithin this perspective drug testing is believedto be one way of trying to create an educationalenvironment around children that is free fromillegal drug use. Young people are, however,only one of a range of groups within the schoolenvironment and an equal case can be made forschool staff themselves (heads, teachers andsupport staff) to be subjected to random testing.Within the review undertaken by DuPont andcolleagues some of the schools did include anelement of staff drug testing either prior toappointment or on a voluntary basis thereafter.Within the UK, school staff are subject to avariety of pre-employment checks; however,there has been no equivalent suggestion thatstaff should be subjected to similar randomdrug testing and it is likely that staff and unionswould contest such a proposal were this to bemade.

20

Random drug testing of school pupils iscommonplace within the United States and,following Prime Minister Blair’s recentstatements, may become increasinglycommonplace within the United Kingdom. Ifthis were to happen in the UK is this somethingwe should applaud or something we shouldlament? The theories or sets of assumptionsunderpinning drug testing seemstraightforward enough and are premised onthe idea that illegal or socially transgressivebehaviours are less likely to occur if they aremade more visible. In addition there are theassumed benefits of early identification andearly intervention and the capacity to bolsteryoung people’s resistance to illegal drugs. Forreasons that have been set out in this report bothof these additional theories are subservient tothe surveillance element of drug testing.

Random drug testing is principally aboutincreasing the surveillance of young people and,in doing so, reducing the chances that they mayuse illegal drugs (if you do use you stand areasonable chance of being caught). The fact thatthose procedures are random means further thatyou can never anticipate when you might beasked to take a test, and in this way studentsbecome like Bentham’s Panopticon – prisonerssubject to the ever present threat of beingwatched.

Whilst the theory behind drug testing isplausible enough, the evidence for it isremarkably thin. Testing programmes have beendeveloped in the United States in advance of theresearch needed to assess their efficacy. Theyhave been embraced by a government clearlyworried at the level of illegal drug use on thepart of its young people and the evident failureof existing methods of drug prevention.

However, even in the face of governmentalsupport, there is a need to subject drug-testingprogrammes to rigorous and independentevaluations. To be effective this research willneed to compare schools with different testingprogrammes with schools that do not testpupils. There will be a need to measure not onlyyoung people’s use and attitudes towards legaland illegal drugs but also their attitudestowards school, their relationships with schoolstaff, their involvement in extra-curricularactivities, their attendance pattern and theiracademic performance. It will be important tolook at the impact of drug testing not on singleschools but on a sufficiently large number ofschools to be able to control for differencesbetween schools. The research will need to beable to compare the experience of bothmandatory and voluntary testing in schools. Itwill also be important to collect information onthe extent of random drug testing of pupils andthe different types of testing regimes that maydevelop. Within the United States, as has beenpointed out by DuPont and colleagues, testingprogrammes differ markedly from one school tothe next. Within the UK, where these schemesare to be funded at a local level, there is an evengreater likelihood of individual variationbetween schools in the testing regimesdeveloped, which underlines the need to closelymonitor the development of such programmes.

In the absence of clear evaluations of theeffectiveness of random drug testing, thequestion remains as to whether it is seen as apositive development in the fight against illegaldrugs or as an alarming extension in thesurveillance of young people’s lives by adults.The answer to that question is very much amatter of how one views the issue of teenage

4 Discussion and conclusions

21

Discussion and conclusions

drug use. Within the United Kingdom cannabishas recently been rescheduled from class B toclass C within the Misuse of Drugs Act.According to the Home Secretary, thisreclassification, and the accompanying guidanceto police forces to caution rather than arrestthose found in possession of small amounts ofthe drug for personal use, should enable thepolice to focus upon the two drugs (heroin andcocaine) which are seen to cause the most harm.At the same time the Prime Minister hasexpressed his support for school-based drugtesting (which will principally identify cannabisuse on the part of young people). Thecoincidence of these two developments standsas a clear sign of the confusion which cannabiselicits on the part of those in government. At thepresent time we have a situation where a youngperson may receive a formal warning from apolice officer for being found in possession ofcannabis and yet be permanently excluded fromschool for having failed a drug test for the samesubstance.

Setting these issues aside, the questionremains: if drug testing were seen to reduce thelevels of illegal drug use by young peoplewould it be something that we should adopt inUK schools? If the answer to that question isyes, would it still be yes if one found out thatwhilst the testing programme had reducedillegal drug use amongst the generality of pupilsit had had no impact on the minority of moretroubled young people who were using drugsmore frequently? Or that it had resulted in someyoung people switching from using cannabis,which is easy to detect in urine, to using other,more harmful drugs, that are harder to detect?These are questions about the limits of drugtesting, the possible harms of drug testing, and

about whether the ends (of reducing teenagedrug use) justify the means (of random drugtests). In the absence of robust evaluation,student drug testing will continue to bepromoted or contested on the basis of politicalviewpoint and opinion rather than evidence andwe will be no nearer to answering the questionof whether it works.

Finally there is the question of whetherschool-based random drug-testing programmesare likely to take off in the UK as they havedone within the United States. While schoolswithin the private sector may undertakerandom drug testing (as some of them currentlydo) there is rather less likelihood that suchschemes will develop widely in the state sector.The current guidance from the Department forEducation and Skills, although certainly notanti-drug testing, is very cautious in identifyingthe range of issues that would need to beconsidered by any school thinking ofdeveloping a testing programme.

In forming a judgement about the likelihoodof drug testing in the UK it is important torecognise the very different context of opinionwithin the UK from that within the USA. Withinthe United States, federal funding for drugtesting has been provided within the context ofa strong movement towards creating ‘drug-freeschools’. Within the USA cannabis is seen bypolicy makers as posing a serious threat to thehealth and well-being of young people. Withinthe UK, by contrast, although the governmentmay not have a relaxed attitude towards it,cannabis is certainly not seen in the samethreatening way as it is in the USA. Equally,there is no central government funding for drugtesting and no equivalent campaign to createdrug-free schools. As a result it does not seem

22


likely that drug testing will take off in the UK asit has in the USA. Whether one applauds orregrets that outcome should depend upon theevidence. If that evidence is positive we mayfeel that we are missing a valuable tool in thefield of drug prevention. If the evidence isnegative we may congratulate ourselves onhaving avoided a programme that is potentiallycostly, intrusive and ethically complex, and

which may still leave those children at greatestrisk of developing a pattern of more long-termdrug use in need of care and support. However,until the evidence one way or another isavailable it would seem prudent for thegovernment to advise caution rather thanencourage experimentation with a costly andpotentially damaging new approach to drugprevention.

23

Balding, J.W. (2002) Young People in 2001.London: Schools Health Education Unit

Barnard, M., Forsyth, A. and McKeganey, N.(1996) ‘Levels of drug use among a sample ofScottish schoolchildren’, Drugs: Education,

Prevention and Policy, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 81–9

Bauman, K. and Ennet, S.T. (1996) ‘On theimportance of peer influence for adolescentdrug use: commonly neglected considerations’,Addiction, Vol. 91, No. 2, pp. 185–98

Bloor, M. and McIntosh, J. (1990) ‘Surveillanceand concealment: a comparison of techniques ofclient resistance in therapeutic communities andhealth visiting’, in S. Burley and N. McKeganey(eds) Readings in Medical Sociology. London:Routledge

Bloor, M., Kahveci, E., Sampson, H. andThomas, M. (2001) ‘Worse things happen at sea:safety rules and procedures on merchant cargoships’, paper presented at the Work,Employment and Society Conference,Nottingham

Boreham R. and Shaw, A. (2001) Smoking,

Drinking and Drug Use among Young People in

England in 2000. London: The Stationery Office

Caulkins, J., Pacula, R., Paddock, S. and Chiesa,J. (2002) School-Based Drug Prevention: What Kind

of Drug Use Does It Prevent? http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1459/

Chaffin, M. (2004) ‘Is it time to rethink healthystart/healthy families?’, Child Abuse and Neglect,Vol. 28, pp. 589–95

Cohen, C. (1990) ‘Ethical issues in mandatorydrug testing’, in R. Rosner and R. Weinstock(eds) Ethical Practice in Psychiatry and the Law:

Critical Issues in American Psychiatry. New York:Plenum

Department for Education and Skills (2004)Drugs: Guidance for Schools. London: theStationery Office

Department of Health and Human Services(2004) Human Research Protections Under

Federalwide Assurance, FWA-161. www.hhs.gov/ohrp/assurances/assurances_index.html

DuPont, R. (2003) Commentary. Institute forBehavior and Health. www.studentdrugtesting.org

DuPont, R., Campbell, T. and Mazza, J. (2002)Elements of a Successful School-Based Student Drug

Testing Program. US Department of EducationOffice of Elementary and Secondary EducationSafe and Drug Free Schools Programme

Edwards, C.E. and Student Drug TestingCoalition (2004) Student Drug Testing Programs:

An Overview and Resource Guide. Available athttp://www.studentdrugtesting.org/Manual2l.pdf

EMCDDA (European Monitoring Centre forDrugs and Drug Addiction) (2004) Annual

Report 2003: The State of the Drugs Problem in the

European Union and Norway. Lisbon: EMCDDA

Foucault, M. (1979) The History of Sexuality, Vol.1. London: Allen Lane

Foucault, M. (1980) ‘The eye of power’, in C.Gordon (ed.) Power/Knowledge: Selected

Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977.Brighton: Harvester Wheatsheaf

References

24


Goldberg, L., Elliot, D.L., MacKinnon, D.P., Moe,E., Kuehl, K.S., Nohre, L. and Lockwood, C.M.(2003) ‘Drug testing athletes to preventsubstance abuse: background and pilot studyresults of the SATURN (student athlete testingusing random notification) study’, Journal of

Adolescent Health, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 16–25

Gunja, F., Cox, A., Rosenbaum, M. and Appel, J.(2004) Making Sense of Student Drug Testing: Why

Educators Are Saying No. New Haven, Conn.:American Civil Liberties Union (Drug PolicyLitigation Project) and New York: Drug PolicyAlliance

IIDTW (2004) Drug Testing and the Workplace: The

Report of the Independent Inquiry into Drug Testing

at Work. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Lawler, J. (2000) Drug Testing in Schools: A Pro/

Con Issue. Berkeley Heights, NJ: EnslowPublishers

Mason, K. (2003) ‘Drug testing in schools:attitudes of high school students’, PhD thesis,University of New Orleans

McIntosh, J., MacDonald, F. and McKeganey, N.(2004) Why Do Children Experiment with Illegal

Drugs? The Decreasing Role of Peer Pressure with

Increasing Age. Glasgow: Centre for Drug MisuseResearch, University of Glasgow

McKeganey, N., McIntosh, J., MaCdonald, F.,Gilvarry, E., McArdle, P. and McCarthy, S. (2004)‘Preteen children and illegal drugs’, Drugs:

Education, Prevention and Policy, Vol. 11, No. 4,pp. 315–27

McKinney, J. (2004a) The Effectiveness and Legality

of Random Drug Testing Policies. Available atwww.studentdrugtesting.org

McKinney, J. (2004b) Study of High Schools with

Student Drug Testing Programmes. Available atwww.studentdrugtesting.org

Miller, P. and Plant, M. (1996) ‘Drinking,smoking and illicit drug use among 15 and 16year olds in the United Kingdom’, British

Medical Journal, No. 313, pp. 394–7

Mills, M. (2004) ‘How we cheated the drugtesters’, Guardian, 25 February

National Drug Control Strategy (2004) Update.Washington, DC: Office of National DrugControl Policy

NCSR/NFER (National Centre for SocialResearch/National Foundation for EducationalResearch) (2003) Drug Use, Smoking and Drinking

among Young People in England in 2003. London:Department of Health

Newton, D. (1999) Drug Testing: An Issue for

School Sports and Work. Springfield, NJ: EnslowPublishers

Rhodes, T., Lilly, R., Fernandez, C., Giorgino, E.,Kemmesis, U.E., Ossebaard, H.C., Lalam, N.,Faasen, I. and Spannow, K.E. (2003) ‘Risk factorsassociated with drug use: the importance of“risk environment”’, Drugs: Education,

Prevention and Policy, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 303–29

Sheppard, M., Wright, D. and Goodstadt, M.(1985) ‘Peer pressure and drug use: explodingthe myths’, Adolescence, Vol. 20, No. 80, pp. 949–58

Yamaguchi, R., Johnston, L. and O’Malley, P.(2003) ‘Relationship between student illicit druguse and school drug testing policies’, Journal of

School Health, Vol. 73, No. 4, pp. 159–64

Documents

Random drug testing of schoolchildren - JRF · The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has supported this project as part of its programme of research and innovative development projects,