DuPont Comment on New York Times article - 6-5-03 à lire en Document, Jackie - livre numérique Santé et bien-être

J

u

n

e

5

,

2

0

3

C

O

M

E

N

T

A

R

Y

“Study Finds No Sign That Testing Deters Students’ Drug Use”

New York Times

Page One, May 17, 2003

1

&

The study featured in the article: “Relationship between student illicit drug use and school drug-

testing policies” By Yamaguchi, Royoko, Johnston, Lloyd D and O’Malley, Patrick M. Published

American School Health Association Journal of School Health.

April 1, 2003

2

The research on student drug testing reported in “Study Finds No Sign That Testing Deters Students’

Drug Use,” on page one, May 17, 2003, made an important point, a point that

i

s

c

o

m

p

l

e

t

e

ly

overlooked in the

New York Times

article. The authors compared the drug-using rates of students in

the 8

th

, 10

th

and 12

th

grades of a sample of 722 of the nation’s middle schools and high schools during

the

y

e

a

r

s

f

r

o

m

1

9

8

t

o

2

0

1

.

T

h

e

s

e

s

c

h

o

l

s

w

e

r

e

d

i

c

h

o

tomized based on each school principal’s

answer to this question: “In the school year, did your school test any students for illicit drug use?”

About 18% of the schools said “yes” and 82% said “no.” Those schools which said “yes” were further

subdivided into schools that conducted either random testing or “suspicion-based” testing.

Principals

were

a

s

k

e

d

w

h

i

c

h

g

r

o

u

p

s

o

f

s

t

u

d

e

n

t

s at their schools were tested: students participating on an athletic

team, students in other extracurricular activities, selected student

s

b

a

s

e

d on suspicion or cause,

s

t

u

d

e

n

t

s on school probation, students who volunteered to be tested, all students, and “other.”

Principals checked as many of those categories as applied to the drug tests conducted each year at

their schools. Then the principals were asked to describe the

r

e

a

s

o

n

s

f

o

r

d

r

u

g

t

e

s

t

i

n

g

a

t

h

e

i

r

s

c

h

o

l

Page 2

with

t

h

e

s

e

o

p

t

i

o

n

s

:

b

a

s

e

d

o

n

s

u

s

p

i

c

i

o

n

o

r

c

a

u

s

e

,

r

o

u

t

i

n

e

d

r

u

g

t

e

s

t

i

n

g

,

s

t

u

d

e

n

t

s

o

r

t

h

e

i

r

p

a

r

e

n

t

s

volunteered, mandated testing, and “other.”

D

a

t

a was obtained about the size of the school, the grades covered in the

s

c

h

o

l

,

t

h

e

p

o

p

u

l

a

t

i

o

n

d

e

n

s

i

t

y of the area served by the school, the social cla

s

o

f

t

h

e

s

t

u

d

ents and a variety of other

measures of the school population.

Then the drug use rates were compared in 18% of the schools reporting that they tested “any

s

t

u

d

e

n

t

s

f

o

r illicit drug use” with 82% of the schools that said they did not.

The result was that there was no

consistent difference between the schools that did test and those that did not.

Not only

i

s

i

t

n

o

t

surprising that no difference in drug use rates was found between these two heterogeneous groups,

but it is almost inconceivable that there would be any difference based on this question since there

is no assessment of how many drug tests were done at each school or whether

t

h

e

r

e

w

a

s

a

n

y

s

o

r

t

o

f

student drug testing program underway at each school or not.

A school that did a single drug test

in a year would be in

c

l

u

d

e

d in the “yes” along with a school that had a comprehensive drug

prevention program that included carefully-structured student drug testing.

If the study had ended at that point then there would be no complaint and no story for the

New York

Times

.

H

o

w

e

v

e

r

,

t

h

a

t

w

a

s

n

o

t the end of this sad example of the reckless misuse of survey data.

The

study contained this obligatory disclaimer, “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 as some (including some on the Supreme Court) had

h

o

p

e

d

.

”

T

h

i

s

i

s

t

h

e

p

o

i

n

t

o

f

this study: When all the schools that did any drug testing at all were compared to the schools that did

n

o

t

,

t

h

e

r

e

w

a

s

n

o

c

o

n

s

i

s

t

e

n

t

d

i

f

e

r

e

n

c

e

i

n

r

a

t

e

s

o

f student drug use found between the two

g

r

o

u

p

s

o

f

schools.

No one that I know has ever claimed that student drug testing is “a panacea for reducing student drug

use” or even that student drug testing alone made a se

n

s

i

b

l

e

,

let alone an ideal, drug

p

r

e

v

e

n

t

i

o

n program for any school. The policy question facing schools today is whether

Page 3

adding well-structured, non-punitive student drug testing deters illegal drug use and helps parents and

studen

t

s fin

d

a

n

d

u

s

e

f

e

c

t

i

v

e

h

e

l

p

e

a

r

l

i

e

r

i

n

t

h

e

c

y

c

l

e

o

f

d

r

u

g

d

e

p

e

n

d

e

n

c

e

.

T

h

i

s

t

u

d

y

f

a

i

l

e

d

t

o

address this important question.

The

New York Times

headline m

a

d

e clear just how far from this terribly limited data the quoted

experts, including one of the authors of the study, have strayed. This study is the equivalent of taking

a

s

a

m

p

l

e

o

f

a

l

o

f

t

h

e

p

a

t

i

e

n

t

s

i

n

t

h

e

c

o

u

n

t

r

y

o

v

e

r

a

y

e

a

r

,

w

h

o

t

o

k

o

n

e

d

o

s

e

o

f

a

blood pressure

medicine compared to patients who took no medicine and, finding no di

f

e

r

e

n

c

e

i

n

t

h

e

b

l

o

d

pressures in the two groups, concluding that antihypertensive treatments do not work. To compound

the problem of the study’s inadequate design, the article quotes e

x

p

e

r

ts who concluded from this

study

t

h

a

t

d

r

u

g

e

d

u

c

a

t

i

o

n

(

n

o

t

s

t

u

d

e

n

t

d

r

u

g

t

e

s

t

i

n

g

)

“

i

s

t

h

e

m

o

s

t

e

f

e

c

t

i

v

e

w

e

a

p

o

n against substance

abuse.”

D

o

t

h

e

r

e

s

e

a

r

c

h

e

r

s

a

t

h

e

U

n

i

v

e

r

s

i

t

y

o

f Michigan think that if they compared a sample of

all

o

f

t

h

e

schools in the country reporting that they are doing any sort of drug education w

i

t

h

a

l

t

h

e

schools reporting that they are not, that such a study would be a reasonable test of drug education?

What is needed is a controlled study comparing student drug use

r

a

t

e

s in schools using several

d

i

f

e

r

e

n

t

, adequately implemented, student drug testing a

p

r

oaches with schools that do not do

student drug testing while both groups of schools use standard drug education approaches. A well-

designed study would not only show whether drug testing works to reduce student drug use, but it

would show which of the several different

a

p

r

o

a

c

h

e

s

t

o

s

t

u

d

e

n

t

d

r

u

g

t

e

s

t

i

n

g

i

s

t

h

e

m

o

s

t

c

o

s

t

-

effective.

S

u

c

h

s

t

u

d

i

e

s

a

r

e

n

o

t difficult to do, but they require careful characterization of the specific

student drug testing programs followed by linking those specific programs to the rates of drug use

in those schools before and after the student drug testing programs.

The best study design that could establish whether a student drug testing produced a deterrent effect

would be a randomized experimental design or an examination of longitudinal results from a “natural

e

x

p

e

r

i

m

e

n

t

” (such as studying the same school over time, before and after student drug testing). This

study did neither.

Instead, it was a simple “cross–sectional” design that merely compared schools

to each other in two meaningless categories – those whose principals said “yes” and those

whose said “no” to that single, simplistic question.

Page 4

Three recent examples of studies which have captured the effectiveness

o

f student drug testing are

the New Jersey

s

t

u

d

y

3

,

the Indiana study

4

, and the Oregon study

5

.

These three studies examined

specific school drug testing programs and their effects on the drug use rates in those schools b

o

t

h

before and after the implementation of the SD

T

p

r

o

gram.

All showed that student drug testing

reduced student drug use, as did the pilot study done by the Institute for Behavior and Health (IBH)

f

o

r

t

h

e

U

.

S

.

D

e

p

a

r

t

m

e

n

t

o

f

E

d

u

c

a

t

i

o

n

6

.

In addition to the reduction in student drug use, IBH’s pilot study revealed yet another striking and

important finding:

“All of the SDT programs were based upon a health and safety rationale, with the

purpose of prevention rather than punishment.

In every school surveyed the SDT

program was just one part of a larger, comprehensive

i

n

i

t

i

a

t

i

v

e

t

o

k

e

p

s

t

u

d

e

n

t

s

a

f

e

from drugs.”

Having this as an underlying principle for

all

S

D

T

p

r

o

g

r

a

m

s

c

a

n

p

r

o

v

i

d

e

f

o

r

a

g

o

d

f

o

u

n

d

a

t

i

o

n

o

n

which schools can build and implement an effective and comprehensive SDT program.

The study described in the

New York Times

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

w

a

s

n

o

t able to produce a clear and decisive

f

i

n

d

i

n

g

o

n

t

h

e

f

e

c

t

i

v

e

n

e

s

o

f student drug testing.

A relevant national study

i

s

w

h

a

t

i

s

n

e

d

e

d

t

o

have an impact on the policy decision facing schools across the country.

The US Supreme Court has

found in two landmark cases that mandatory, random drug testing in public school passes

Constitutional muster. There never was a Constitutional question about private schools conducting

drug

t

e

sts or about “for-cause” drug testing in public schools. The only legal issue before the

Supreme Court has been whether public schools could require large groups of students to take

r

a

n

d

o

m drug

t

e

s

t

s

w

i

t

h

o

u

t

i

n

d

i

v

i

d

u

a

l

i

z

e

d

s

u

s

p

i

c

i

o

n that the students to be tested were drug abusers.

So far the answer to that question has been “yes,” if the tests are well-structured, health-orientated

and reasonably administered.

Posing the policy question for schools today as if the schools faced a choice

o

f

e

i

t

h

e

r

d

r

u

g

e

d

u

c

a

t

i

o

n

o

r student drug tes

t

i

n

g

, as the study and the

New York Times

article does, poses a false

choice.

No one has claimed that student drug testing alone is the magic bullet to reduce the

Page 5

lamentably high levels of teenage drug use in the United States or that drug

e

d

u

c

a

t

i

o

n

i

s

n

o

t effective.

The question is this, “Does a well-designed student drug testing program enhance other school and

community efforts to reduce teenage drug use?”

Drug testing has been successfully used for decades in drug treatment, the criminal justice system and

in the workplace. Testing linked to consequences clearly does deter drug use in every setting where

it has been studied. Hundreds of schools in the US have begun pioneering efforts to add student drug

t

e

s

t

i

n

g

t

o their comprehensive efforts to reduce teenage drug use. The study reported in this article

does

a

d

i

s

e

r

v

i

c

e

t

o this important effort, an effort which holds the promise of dramatically reducing

the recruitment of new users of illegal drugs in this country, most

o

f

w

h

o

m are teenagers in schools.

W

h

a

t

i

s

n

e

d

e

d

t

o

d

a

y

i

s

a

t

h

o

r

o

u

g

h

a

n

d

f

a

i

r

t

e

s

t

o

f a wide variety of student drug testing programs

t

o help

s

c

h

o

l

s

f

i

n

d

t

h

e

m

o

s

t

c

o

s

t

e

f

e

c

t

i

v

e

w

a

y

s

t

o

p

r

e

v

e

n

t

h

e

t

r

a

g

i

c

a

l

y

h

i

g

h

r

a

t

e

o

f

s

t

u

d

e

n

t

u

s

e

o

f

illegal drugs. The study in the

American School Health Association Journal of School Health

and

the article in the

New York Times

will not further this important work because they purport to answer

t

h

e

p

o

l

i

c

y

q

u

e

s

t

i

o

n

w

i

t

h

d

a

t

a that is completely inadequate to support the policy positions taken by

the experts quoted in the article and by the means in which the article itself is written.

Robert L. DuPont, M.D.

President of the Institute for Behavior and Health and

First Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse

Page 6

1

Study Finds No Sign That Testing Deters Students’ Drug Use. (2003, May 17).

The New York Times

, p. A1.

2

Yamaguchi R., Johnston L.D. & O’Malley P.M. (2003).

Relationship between student illicit drug use and school

drug-testing policies.

American School Health Association Journal of School Health

. No.4, 73:159-179.

3

The

American Drug and Alcohol Survey

is available from RMBSI, Inc., 419 Canyon, Suite 316, Fort Collins, CO

80521, telephone 800-447-6354: the

Hunterdon Central Study

is available from David G. Evans, Esq. at the Drug-

Free Schools Coalition at 203 Main St., PMB 327, Flemington, NJ 08822, telephone 908-284-5080, fax 908-284-

5081.

4

The Effectiveness of Legality of Random Drug Testing Policies

.

J

o

s

e

p

h

R

.

M

c

K

i

n

e

y

,

J

.

D

.

,

E

d

.

D

.

,

C

h

a

i

r

a

n

d

P

r

o

f

e

s

o

r

,

D

e

p

a

r

t

m

e

n

t

o

f

E

d

u

c

a

t

i

o

n

a

l

L

e

a

d

e

r

s

h

i

p

,

B

a

l

S

t

a

t

e

U

n

i

v

e

r

s

i

t

y

a

d

j

u

n

c

t

P

r

o

f

e

s

o

r

o

f

L

a

w

,

I

n

d

i

a

n

a

University-Bloomington School of Law.

Available at:

http://www.studentdrugtesting.org/Effectiveness.htm

5

Linn Goldberg, M.D. et al. (2003).

Drug Testing Athletes to Prevent Substance Abuse:

Background and Pilot

S

t

u

d

y

R

e

s

u

l

t

s

o

f

t

h

e

S

A

T

U

R

N

(

S

t

u

d

e

n

t

A

t

h

l

e

t

e

T

e

s

t

i

n

g

U

s

i

n

g

R

a

n

d

o

m

N

o

t

i

f

i

c

a

t

i

o

n

)

S

t

u

d

y

.

O

r

e

g

o

n

H

e

a

l

t

h

a

n

d

Science University, Portland, Oregon.

Journal of Adolescent Health

.

32:16-25.

6

Report of a Preliminary Study:

Elements of a Successful School-Based Student Drug Testing Program

.

R

o

b

e

r

t

Dupont, M.D., Teresa G. Campbell, Ph.D., and Jacqueline Mazza.

Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc.

6191

Executive Blvd., Rockville, Maryland. Telephone 301-231-9010.

U.S. Department of Education Order No. ED-01-PO-3886.

(Released July 22, 2003)

Available at:

http://www.studentdrugtesting.org/Effectiveness.htm

and

w

.

d

a

t

i

a

.

o

r

g

References