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.
No comments:
Post a Comment