Review nº 24

Name: Cristina Soledad Guzmán
Source: www.nytimes.com
Date of publication: November 19, 2008


Review nº 24: Article ‘Drawing the Line on Drug Testing’


Drug addiction and alcohol consumption among teenagers are nowadays the most concerning worries of parents, schools and the whole society. But does the schools have right to test students on substance consumption and monitor their behavior at home? This controversial issue is dealt with in the article ‘Drawing the Line on Drug Testing’ published in The New York Times newspaper.
As many otherAmerican parents, Lynn Evelyn supports what’s called “suspicion-based testing”. That is, testing students if they appear to be impaired at school. In the course of a year the testing for drugs or alcohol have showned a reduction in positive results. But though she thinks that is a school’s right and responsability, she claims that more testing is an invasion of privacy. This has put her at odds with many shool officials of Basking Ridge that want to implement a random drug screening program. This program would test 15% of the students of Ridge High, (her daughter’s school), to monitor their behavior when they are not in school. Mr Gillikin, the school counselor, is surprised with the amaizing results that other schools have obtained with this method.
For Ms Evelyn this is parent’s responsibility, and she claims that the bigger problem is alcohol, not drugs. However, since 2002 it is a rule that schools randomly test students participating in sports and clubs. It has been implemented in 7% of the nation’s high and middle schools. New Jersey has taken an aggressive approach, which has reduced grately the positive results. In the case of Ridge High, any students wanting to play a sport, join a club or get a parking permit – about 80% of the students – would have to consent to random testing or would not be able to participate. The testings would be done once a week. Students testing positive would not miss school, nor would results appear on their transcripts. They would have to take part in counseling with their parents and miss two weeks from their team or club. Mr Gillikin also acknowledges that a school committee could find no academic research indicating that random testing reduces student drug use. Even more, a 2007 report by the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended against testing because there has been little research on the effectiveness, and it can bree “distrust and suspicion” among students, school officials and parents. On the other hand, Ms Evelyn has unearthed a forgotten 2005 study done here, in which a substance abuse was identified but it was alcohol. The report said, it was particularly a problemamong athlets. Indeed, the district’s surveys of Ridge High students over the last decades have found the rate of alcohol abuse to be two to three times the rate of drug abuse. Asked about this, Mr. Gillikin said that they created a coaches, manual on alcohol and drug use to teach student-athletes healthy decision-making. He also said that they should perfect the random drug testing system first and then maybe take on alcohol.
I agree with the claims of Ms Evelyn that “this problem is a parent’s responsibility, not the school’s”. And also in what respects to random testing, when she says: “Any more testing is an invasion of privacy”. In contrast I disagree with Mr Gillikin, because he is making the blind eye to the main problem of the district that is, in fact, alcohol abuse. And also because random testing has not being proved to effectively reduce drug abuse.
To sum up, this article explains the pros and cons of drug testing at schools. The new method can be concidered invasive and useless. In my opinion monitorin students at school is necessary but selecting them randomly creates a sense of disgust and distrust among those who do not consume alcohol or drugs.