School Board Discusses Drug Screening for Students and Athletes, Part II | Eastern North Carolina Now

     This is the second of two articles on the School Board's review of its Drug Testing policy. In the first article we reported, including one video clip, on the discussion of how the revised policy impacts athletes vs. non-athletes. Essentially it provides that athletes can be punished for refusing to take the test by being denied participation in athletics for 365 days while non-athletes will not be subject to sanctions for declining to take the test but may be punished (suspended) based on other evidence of use of illegal drugs or alcohol.

    In the second video clip below the board focused on the issue of tampering with the test specimen, refusing to take the test or leaving school without permission when the testing takes place. Essentially what it says is that if an athlete is found to have tampered, or attempted to tamper, with the screening they are assumed to have be found positive for the use of drugs or alcohol. But non-athletes who aid and abet an athlete in tampering with a specimen are also subject to being barred from subsequent participation in athletics but may also be suspended from school.

    You can hear that discussion by clicking on the video below:

    In the third video clip (below) the presentation focuses on how the random selection process works, what happens if the student contends they cannot produce a urine sample and how the surprise element is maintained.

    We also learn in this clip that the cost of the screening program from 2008, when it was originated to date has been approximately $9,000 to test 1,142 students during that time period.

    Commentary

    We think screening athletes for drug us is a good idea and that the cost (about $9 per test) is reasonable and worth it.

    But we do question whether the school system has done the proper data analysis to determine how effective the program actually is. We find it very troubling that no data is shared with the public to show how much of a problem drug use is among athletes and what the trends have been from before the program was instituted and what has happened during the use of the program. We don't know if the problem has gotten worse or better. That has to be balanced with the costs and intrusion on students' privacy. That is the law and we are not convinced Beaufort is meeting the legal requirements of the recent court decision. The school system apparently does not have the data to meet those legal requirements.

    Alcohol is another matter. It is our understanding, and we are certainly not experts on the issue, that urine testing is not reliable for detecting prior alcohol use. But again, we don't know how many tests for alcohol have turned up positive. That would trouble us if the numbers show "false positives" being present; in either drug or alcohol screening.

    We do know that this program has become something of a "cat and mouse" game for some students. That is obvious in the revisions dealing with "tampering or attempted tampering." Thus, if the premise of the program is that screening is effective because it offers an effective deterrence then one would have to consider the degree to which students actually perceive the reliability of the testing in catching actual use of drugs or alcohol. If it is a joke with students then we are doing more harm than good and teaching the wrong thing to students. If it has caused students who would otherwise have used drugs or alcohol not to do so then we think it strongly justified. But if it has become a game with many students and "beating the system" has become the thing to try then the program needs to be reconsidered. But without good data and a solid research design we have no way of knowing how effective the program is or whether it may indeed be doing more harm than good.

    Delma Blinson writes the "Teacher's Desk" column for our friend in the local publishing business: The Beaufort Observer. His concentration is in the area of his expertise - the education of our youth. He is a former teacher, principal, superintendent and university professor.