How Are Students Tested?

There are five different options for testing students. Click here to see the advantages, disadvantages, and window of detection for each. I suspect blood tests are not included due to the cost of the test.

Note that the table recognizes the possible invasiveness of the urine test.

Also note that this table does not include more recent testing advances, in particular screens for ethyl glucuronide (EtG). The substance is produced by the body after it metabolizes alcohol. The use of EtG screens are being considered by the Pequannock School System to detect use of alcohol up to 48 hours prior to the test.

There is controversy swirling around screening for EtG. Drug testing can result in false positives. The Wall Street Journal published an expose last August that stated urine-alcohol screens are so sensitive that one can test positive from hand sanitizer, cough medicine, household products containing alcohol, and even vanilla extract! (Imagine baking cookies on Friday night and testing positive for alcohol on Monday.) False-positive results can be devastating to a student. The drug and alcohol testing industry products are, for reasons unknown to me, free from federal regulatory approval. Thus, when the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (SAMHSA) issued an advisory warning that the urine-alcohol screen is so sensitive that it can yield a false-positive result, no binding authority existed to enforce sanctions.

School administrators are confident that they can "adjust" the sensitivity of the screens to guard against false positives. I do not know enough about these tests to know if this is possible or not. I will talk with professionals about this issue and update this post when I know more.

Procedures for Testing

The procedures for testing should have checks and balances to safeguard against false-positives and to limit the invasion of privacy to the student. The Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc. is an organization that is pro-RDT. It's president is Robert L. DuPont, M.D. The Institute published a report detailing how to choose which drugs to test for, the frequency of testing, a primer on cost, and other topics. It does not give any advice or procedures to follow to ensure the student's privacy nor how to safeguard against false-positives. I found it curious that ensuring students can't cheat trumps any concern about student privacy.

Drug-Free Schools Coalition is an organization headed by David Evans, Esq., who is pro-RDT. Mr. Evans gives some information regarding student privacy. But he claims that a three step process ensures against false positives.

David Evans, Esq. (who spoke at the Kinnelon forum on January 23, 2007), has published a document that you can read by clicking here.

Random Drug Testing: Privacy and Trust

Two major concerns of parents, school administrators, teachers, and physicians are that Random Drug Testing is invasive and undermines trust between students and adults. The privacy concerns are raised by those both pro- and anti-RDT. There is a difference, however, in how the pro-RDT and anti-RDT address those privacy concerns. The pro- and anti-factions of RDT disagree, rather vehemently, about the trust issue.

Privacy

Those against RDT believe that the privacy of students is invaded. There is plenty of anecdotal information on the web that relate stories of students being embarassed and stigmatized from RDT. On the other hand, pro-RDT advocates believe that with the right testing procedures in place, the privacy of students is assured.

I am distrustful of any government intrusion in my life - what some might call a libertarian point of view. When anyone from our government, whether federal, state or local, tells me they're here to help, I instinctively cringe. This anti-big-government view point is cited by those that feel RDT is just one more encroachment into the private lives of its citizens. But it should be pointed out that the NJ Supreme Court decision

Does Random Drug Testing (RDT) Deter Drug and Alcohold Use?

Not surprisingly, proponents of RDT claim that testing is a deterrent to alcohol and drug abuse, while those against RDT claim that RDT is not a deterrent.

The only large scale, scientific study that addresses this issue was (and still is being) conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan. You can read the results of their study by clicking here. They also wrote a second publication that you can read here.

The conclusion of the first study is printed below for those that are as bored as I am reading statistics.

"This study explored the association between student drug use and drug-testing policies in schools. While lack of evidence for the effectiveness of drug testing is not definitive, results suggest that drug testing in schools may not provide a panacea for reducing student drug use that some (including some on the Supreme Court) had hoped. Research has shown that the strongest predictor of student drug use is students' attitudes toward drug use and perceptions of peer use. To prevent harmful student behaviors such as drug use, school policies that address these key values, attitudes, and perceptions may prove more important in drug prevention than drug testing."

The introduction of the second report states:

"Of most importance, drug testing still is found not to be associated with students' reported illicit drug use - even random testing that potentially subjects the entire student body."

When I attended the January 23, 2007 discussion on RDT, there seemed to be three rebuttals by the panel as to the results of the University of Michigan study.

First, David Evans, Esq. questioned the efficacy of the methodology used in the study. He said that the study compared results from urban and suburban schools.

I was stunned, to say the least. Why would three Ph.D.s risk their livelihood to skew the results of their study? Why would they commit professional suicide when so many of their peers would have reviewed their methodology and test results? So I asked the researchers that conducted the study to respond to that criticism. Dr. Lloyd D. Johnston, Distinguished Research Scientist & Research Professor, The University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, was kind enough to reply:

"Regarding what the lawyer is contending, both articles control for the demographic characteristics of the student body, so we are controlling out differences that might be attributable to those characteristics. (They are listed in the article.) We did not control for the suburban vs.. urban distinction, though we did control for community size. As my co-author O'Malley says, "given that we control private/public, school size, school SES, population density, region, and race/ethnic composition, it seems highly unlikely that inclusion of a suburban-urban distinction would alter the results." I agree with his conclusion. There are always variables that are not controlled in any analysis, so a favorite legal strategy is to find one of them and then claim that the omitted variable is what accounts for the observed differences in the outcomes.

I hope that this is of some help to you.

Regards,

Lloyd Johnston"

Second, RDT isn't about the numbers. Who would argue for privacy concerns and the cost of testing versus the life of a student? If we know we can save the life of just one student, it's worth it. (Note that the Pequannock superintendent referred to attending the funeral of a student that, lacking details, I assume died as a direct result of drugs and/or alcohol.)

No one can argue the cost of a human life. Personally, I don't know anyone that would disagree that any human life is priceless. We tend to get desensitized to this fact when reading daily reports of body counts from Iraq and Darfur. However, if one agrees with the study by the University of Michigan researchers, how does one reconcile the study's conclusion with the ability to prevent a loss of life? How does one know that drug testing will save that life? These are deeply troubling and personal questions that I believe must be answered individually.

Third, there are studies that contradict the University of Michigan study.

Mr. Evans reported the results from his own survey of drug testing at Hunterdon. Mr. Evans stated up front that he is not a statistician and anyone could argue the methodology that was used as assailable. With that in mind, here are the results of Mr. Evans' survey:

Link to Mr. Evans' study here.

Genesis of this Blog

On January 23, 2007 I attended the Random Drug Testing (RDT) forum held by Superintendent Opiekun. I felt the discussion was slanted toward implementing RDT. I have decided to get the facts on both sides of the issue and present them to those who want to make their own decision. The author does not take a position for or against RDT.

I felt strongly enough that I sent this letter to Mr. James Opiekun and Ms. Priscilla Adams of the Kinnelon School District.

Is Random Drug Testing Legal?

Yes, Random Drug Testing (RDT) for any student that participates in extracurricular activities is legal, supported by the Constitution of the United States. However, students that do not participate in extracurricular activities may not be tested randomly for alcohol or illicit drugs. Extracurricular activities are defined as any sport - such as lacrosse, soccer, or football - or any non-athletic endeavors sponsored by the school, such as band, choir and cheer leading.

Two legal entities have jurisdiction over RDT in New Jersey. The Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Supreme Court of the United States. You can read the New Jersey Supreme Court Decision by clicking here. You can read the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court Decision by clicking here.

U.S. Supreme Court Decision

Justice Thomas delivered the majority opinion of the SCOTUS, writing that "Because this Policy [drug testing] reasonably serves the School District's important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students, we hold that it is constitutional." He also wrote "In upholding the constitutionality of the Policy, we express no opinion as to its wisdom."

The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Ginsberg, who argued that students involved in non-athletic competitive activities had a higher expectation of privacy than those in athletics because those students demanded less intense supervision than student-athletes. They also cited studies that showed that students involved in extracurricular activities are significantly less likely to abuse drugs than students not as engaged. The dissenters concluded that "Tecumseh's policy thus falls short doubly if deterrence is its aim: It invades the privacy of students who need deterrence least, and risks steering students at greatest risk for substance abuse away from extracurricular involvement that potentially may palliate drug problems."

NJ Supreme Court Decision

The majority opinion of the NJ Supreme Court was delivered by Justice Verniero. He stated that "Specifically, the school's [Hunterdon Central Regional High School] substance abuse problem has been documented by survey results showing that a third of the students in the upper grades have used illegal drugs and that forty percent of students in the same grades have been intoxicated within the survey's prior twelve-month period. Those results are consistent with other data, including information regarding three deaths due to heroin overdoses........Against that record, we reject the suggestion of our dissenting colleagues that the New Jersey Constitution requires school officials to wait for the problem to worsen before addressing it in the matter sought here."

However, Justice Verniero also wrote: "We leave open the possibility that a future program will not pass constitutional muster either because the school's chosen method of specimen collection is overly intrusive in view of alternative methods, or because the underlying drug and alcohol use at the particular school simply is inadequate to justify it."

Conclusions

Both the U.S. and N.J. Supreme Courts have held that RDT of students participating in extracurricular activities is legal. The majority opinions acknowledge:

1. Additional legal tests as to the legality of drug testing may be forthcoming, particularly if schools attempt to expand RDT beyond students participating in extracurricular activities.
2. It may not make sense to randomly test for drugs as there may not be a problem in a particular school.
3. It may be overly intrusive to randomly test for drugs.

This begs the question: What kind of problem are we facing in Kinnelon? Are we at risk of students overdosing from heroin as was the case in Hunterdon? Do we have rampant drug use and children coaxed to try drugs through peer pressure? Do we have any statistics describing substance abuse by our children?

Ms. Priscilla Adams has said that binge-drinking and prescription drug use are the Kinnelon schools' largest problem. Do others use marijuana or other controlled substances? No doubt. The question then is "Does substance abuse by Kinnelon students require a policy of RDT?