Urineschool: A study of the impact of the Earls decision on high school random drug testing policies

Journal of Law and Education, Jul 2003 by Conlon, Cynthia Kelly

The ten principals also responded to a question that asked about their districts' responses to the Earls decision as well as their districts' current drug abuse prevention efforts. Regarding Earls, all ten principals reported having read about the case (with one having actually read the case itself). Five principals reported having discussed the case with staff, three reviewed existing drug abuse prevention policies, and three recommended instituting or expanding random drug testing. Only one school board took any action, however (adopting random drug testing for students previously disciplined for drug violations).

The principals also indicated which of the following drug abuse efforts were in effect at their schools.

Random Locker Searches: 3 Schools

Random Searches By Drug-Sniffing Dogs: 5 Schools

Referrals to a Student Assistance Program: 9 Schools

Surveys to Determine the Level of Student Drug Use: 5 Schools

System of Rewards For Avoiding Drugs: 1 School

Assemblies and Other Educational Efforts: 6 Schools

From these survey data, it appears that Earls did not have a significant impact on school policy. Although all of the ten principals were aware of this important decision, only three schools without random drug testing even considered instituting such a program. One of these schools instituted random drug testing in the fall of 2002, but did not target students in extracurricular activities. Instead, this school began narrowly testing only those students who had previously been disciplined for drug violations and who had been required to complete a drug counseling program prior to their return to school.45 The two other principals of schools without random drug testing who supported instituting such a program did not even get to the point of making a formal request to their respective school boards. In addition, the two schools that had been conducting random drug testing for athletes since 1997 did not expand their programs to include students in extracurricular activities as Earls permits.

The ten principals were then interviewed to allow them to expand upon their survey responses and to comment generally on their views of random drug testing. Although not easily quantifiable, a much clearer picture of each principal and school emerged from these discussions. A qualitative description of principals by category is set out below.

1. The Philosophically Opposed Principal

Three principals fall into this group. All three expressed their strong opposition to random drug testing. As one principal explained, "the vast majority of our students are good kids. Random drug testing speaks first to distrust" and such an approach would be inconsistent with the larger goals of the school. As she noted, "we probably have the fewest rules of any high school you can find." The school culture promotes trust and fosters the "notion of mutual respect among all members of the school community. " A second principal echoed this philosophy, also stressing that education and not "policing" is the better approach. He also stated that he did not believe that random drug testing had any deterrent effect. As he put it, "the threat of jail has not had a deterrent effect in the larger community" so why would random drug testing in the school setting? He sees random drug testing as a type of "Big Brother" surveillance that is undesirable and which teaches students that their word is not to be believed. The third principal voiced similar concerns, but also emphasized the invasion of privacy that is involved in random drug testing.