Pubdate: Sat, 21 Apr 2007
Source: New Scientist (UK)
Pages: 8 - 9
Copyright: New Scientist, RBI Limited 2007
Contact:  http://www.newscientist.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/294
Author: Phil Mckenna
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?225 (Students - United States)

SCHOOLS URGED INTO DIVISIVE DRUG CRACKDOWN

FOR its supporters, random drug testing sends out an important 
message to schoolchildren. "It provides them with a suit of armour 
against peer pressure, enabling them to say no to drugs," says John 
P. Walters, director of the White House Office of National Drug 
Control Policy (ONDCP). Since 2002, when the Supreme Court ruled that 
schools could drug-test middle and high-school students participating 
in extracurricular activities, the US has seen a rapid increase in 
such testing.

However, scientists have repeatedly called into question the 
effectiveness of such tests. Last month the American Academy of 
Pediatrics (AAP) reaffirmed its position that drug testing should not 
be widely implemented without additional evaluation of its safety and 
efficacy. It also recommended making drug treatment services more 
readily available for teens (Pediatrics, DOI: 10.1542/peds.2006-2278).

In spite of the criticisms, proponents are already pushing ahead with 
plans to expand testing in schools. On 24 April, school 
administrators from across the south-west US will gather in Las 
Vegas, Nevada, to hear ONDCP representatives speak in the fourth in a 
series of drug policy "summits" this year. Speakers will explain how 
schools can join the nearly 1000 that have already started random 
testing, and compete for a slice of $1.6 million in federal support 
for such programmes.

Schools in other countries have been watching with interest, and some 
have already followed suit. In 2005, The Abbey School in Faversham, 
UK, began taking mouth swabs from random pupils to test for all 
classes of drugs. Exam results have since improved significantly, 
claims the UK's Department for Education and Skills. The DfES is 
considering further pilot schemes, and is recruiting schools to take 
part in trials of random tests. Meanwhile, in August 2006, South 
Australia member of parliament Ann Bressington proposed mandatory 
biannual drug testing of all the state's school students over the age of 14.

The ONDCP and others in favour of testing claim that a number of 
studies have shown it works. These include a survey in which 80 per 
cent of high-school principals in Indiana reported an increase in 
drug use after the cessation of a state-wide testing programme in 
2000; a study by the US Department of Defense which found that drug 
use among military personnel decreased from 27 per cent to less than 
1 per cent in the 25 years following the introduction of random drug 
tests; and research by Oregon Health & Science University in Portland 
which found that drug use was 14 per cent lower in a school that used 
random drug testing compared with one that didn't - although it only 
compared these two schools.

"I think that what is being presented is seductive," says Sharon 
Levy, director of the Adolescent Substance Abuse Program at 
Children's Hospital Boston. However, she believes the ONDCP 
overstates the effectiveness of drug testing, and she is not alone. A 
2005 survey of 359 US physicians specialising in paediatric, 
adolescent and family medicine, found that 80 per cent disagreed or 
strongly disagreed with the ONDCP's recommendation that all 
adolescent students be tested for drugs. John Knight, also of 
Children's Hospital Boston, says there are only two peer-reviewed 
articles. "One showed essentially no correlation between testing and 
drug use rates, the other showed a slight decline," he says.

The AAP points to the largest federally funded study on school drug 
testing so far, conducted by the University of Michigan. It surveyed 
more than 76,000 students and found virtually no difference in 
marijuana use between schools that tested and ones that did not. 
Based on this and other studies, an independent review by the UK's 
Joseph Rowntree Foundation concluded in 2005 that the evidence in 
favour of drug testing was "remarkably thin", and that it may be 
"potentially damaging" to efforts to tackle drug abuse.

What's more, such tests can flag kids who are "clean" and miss 
genuine users. A study led by Levy and published this month in 
Pediatrics (DOI: 01.1542/peds.2006-2278) examined recent drug tests 
of teenagers being treated for substance abuse. Of 710 drug tests 
performed, 85 gave incorrect results, either because the urine sample 
was too dilute to interpret properly, or because the test picked up 
prescription medicines. Meanwhile, routine tests failed to detect the 
painkiller oxycodone in nearly two-thirds of cases.

"Drug tests can be very difficult to understand and interpret," says 
Levy. "There are lots of circumstances under which a kid could be 
using drugs and not test positive or have a positive test when they 
are not using drugs."

While the rules for federally funded testing say positive results 
must be checked by an approved lab, no such rules exist for the 
approximately 500 schools that are testing without federal grants. 
"Confirmatory testing adds a lot of cost. I don't think most schools 
are doing it." Levy says.

Bertha Madras, deputy director for demand reduction at the ONDCP, 
says she is confident the tests do work and can have a major impact 
in discouraging drug use. She claims the Michigan study is flawed 
because it lumps together random tests with testing suspected users. 
The Department of Education is conducting a three-year study to 
assess the programme's effectiveness, and starting last year, US 
schools receiving federal support must report their results.

Until these results are in, Levy says it is unwise to recruit more 
schools into the scheme. "Until we better understand the costs, 
risks, and benefits of these tests, we really can't make a rational 
decision about using them in this way," she says.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake