A new high stakes test: Woodward Academy will screen its students for drugs. Good idea for all schools?
Several Woodward Academy parents sent me notes a few weeks ago about a surprising letter that came home from the College Park private school announcing that students will be subjected to random drug tests starting in fall of 2013.
Those parents were not happy about the plan to test randomly selected students. Many private schools around the country test their students for drugs, although there is debate over the efficacy of such policies.
One Woodward parent wrote: “I’m completely opposed to the school’s decision…It’s interesting to note that all studies conducted in regards to student drug testing indicate that these programs are ineffective at reducing drug use.” Another told me: “I am considering other schools for my son next year.”
I went to the National Institute on Drug Abuse web site for background on student drug testing and found this question and answer:
What has research determined about the utility of random drug tests in schools?
There is not very much research in this area, and the early research shows mixed results. A study published in 2007 (Goldberg et al, J. Adolesc Health, 41: 421-29, 2007) found that student athletes who participated in randomized drug testing had overall rates of drug use similar to students who did not take part in the program, and in fact some indicators of future drug abuse increased among those participating in the drug testing program. Because of the limited number of studies on this topic more research is warranted.
In 2011, researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania found that male students in high schools that drug test report no less recent use of alcohol, marijuana, or cigarettes than peers in schools that don’t test. However, the study found that drug testing could be effective with female students, but only in schools “that have good social climates, where the students and adults respect each other and the rules of the school are clear and enforced fairly.”
At the time, study co-author Dan Romer, director of the Adolescent and Health Communication Institutes of APPC, said, “This study sends a cautionary note to the estimated 20 percent or more of high schools that have joined the drug testing bandwagon. We find little evidence that this approach to minimizing teen drug use is having the deterrent effect its proponents claim. And only in schools that have a very good school climate, reported by about a third of students, does this intervention exert a protective influence on adolescent girls. Schools that have joined the rush to implement testing should ask themselves whether this strategy has been oversold.”
If Woodward students fail their first urine test, they won’t be kicked out of the school. However, a second positive test for drugs will lead to the child’s withdrawal or dismissal from the school, according to the AJC story. In the story , the school says most parents are pleased with the policy.
If you were a parent, how would this decision sit with you?
Here is an excerpt of the AJC story on Woodward:
The elite private school where tuition is $21,950 a year will start random drug testing students in grades nine through 12 next fall. School President Stuart Gulley said the testing will be done not because there’s hard evidence of drug abuse at the school but because of a “large number of anecdotal accounts of drug use not just at Woodward, but throughout metro Atlanta.”
Students will be randomly selected and tested. The goal is to test 40 percent of the approximately 1,000 students at the academy’s high school level by the end of the year. Teachers and administrators — including Gulley — will also be randomly tested.
“There’s certainly the impulse to be aggressive about this,” said Paul Bianchi, the headmaster at the Paideia School, which instead of testing for drugs focuses on drug education. “But I think [random drug tests] create too much of an adversarial relationship in the school between adults and students.”
Woodward has no hard evidence of growing drug use by students, said Gulley, who can only remember two confirmed cases of students abusing drugs in his four years there. Still, parents have “overwhelmingly” embraced the testing plan, he said.
Suzy Ellis is one of them. “It gives students another opportunity to say ‘no’ to the peer pressure around them these days to do drugs,” said Ellis, whose daughter is a senior at the school. “They can say ‘no’ because my school tests for drugs and my parents might find out.”
Woodward says about half a dozen parents, such as Boyd Johnson, have questioned the testing. Johnson calls it an intrusion on “personal privacy rights and the parental role.”
“It’s almost guilty until proven innocent,” he said. “I think the school needs to be teaching the importance of privacy rights instead of having random drug testing.”
The tests, which will detect illegal and prescription drugs but not alcohol, will be administered about every two weeks. The results will be reported only to parents and the school’s administration.
Wesleyan Athletic Director Marc Khedouri adopted the random testing policy at the school when he was dean of students. He said it has reduced drug problems at Wesleyan and not hurt enrollment.
“We’ve probably talked to five or six other schools that are in the process of considering adopting a random testing policy,” he said. “Woodward isn’t the only one. There will be others.”
Like Paideia, some other private schools — including the Lovett School and Holy Innocents’ Episcopal School — are stressing drug education over testing.
The schools only test a student if there’s a strong suspicion that he has used drugs. “You’re not educating the student’s best self” when he is taking drugs, said Bianchi, Paideia’s headmaster. “… That’s part of the deal that you’re going to try hard and grow, academically and in personal ways. If you’re under the influence … not everyone is entering into a clear-minded contract.”
The American Civil Liberties Union has successfully sued public school districts in state and federal courts for violating students’ civil rights through random drug testing. Public schools now have to prove that drug use is a danger to students before testing them.
–From Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
122 comments Add your comment
Rick C
October 2nd, 2012
3:20 pm
flipper, very good points. It’s also worth pointing out that it’s not out of the realm of possibility that a student could use cocaine or opiates every Friday night, and then still test clean by Monday morning. Drug testing is simply just not a viable solution to stop drug usage.
Centrist
October 2nd, 2012
3:46 pm
My last post on this subject, and again directed at Head Scratcher: As I previously pointed out, school is preparation for the future. I have outlined where so many prospective employers screen for drugs (and they do carry out random tests even if your experience was different). It is in the students’ and parents’ best interest to nip in the bud any experimentation either by the testing deterrent, or testing confirmation. Either stopping a long road of destructive behavior, or students becoming ineligible for many industries and careers is reason enough for random testing in schools. There are far too many people who think a little recreational drug use can be controlled and not lead to addiction or complications. I lost a family member that way.
And the cop out that students don’t work in safety related industries is pitiful. They are immature with little experience, make poor impulsive knee-jerk decisions, drive cars, and have access to weapons and matches.
Woodward Dad
October 2nd, 2012
3:54 pm
Flipper,
You need to come up for air a little more frequently. You’re running low on oxygen. I’m not asking Woodward to check if my kids are at a “teen orgy” or “knee walking drunk” last weekend. That’s my job. And believe me I check on that constantly. The “cloud” is such a great thing. But if they know they might be tested for illegal drug use and it helps them divert pressure from peers who have no fear of getting kicked out of a good school, then I am guilty as charged for supporting this measure.
Jim Chaput
October 2nd, 2012
4:14 pm
Woodward Dad – calm down and smell the flowers, you’re becoming a bit shrill. If you are that concerned about the effect of illegal drugs on your children, sit down with them and hear their side of the story. Later, read a few histories of the Prohibition Era to give yourself a little perspective on the War on Drugs. If you look close you will see that the “Noble Experiment” of the 1920s was in reality a grubby power grab by people so fanatically opposed to the evils of alcohol that they could not see that the evils of Prohibition were worse. In time, the anti-drug warriors of today will be seen as latter-day Wayne Wheelers and Carrie Nations.
There is no question that society would be better off without both alcohol and the illegal drugs. But after wasting thousands of lives, trashing the Bill of Rights and squandering hundreds of millions of dollars our grandparents had to admit Prohibition didn’t work and vote for Repeal. In the same way, it is time for us to admit that Drug Prohibition doesn’t work and vote for Repeal and regulation.
The critical point is that the little good that was in Prohibition died with Repeal but much of the evil in Prohibition lives on today. In the same way, the little good that is in the current Drug Prohibition will die when we finally vote for Repeal but the evils in Drug Prohibition will be with us for a generation after Repeal.
Oh, and just for the record, I don’t smoke pot.
John Konop
October 2nd, 2012
4:20 pm
Flipper,
It is rather obnoxious of you offering parenting advise to Woodward Dad. From reading his comments he seems like a bright and reasonable guy who is only trying to do the best thing for his kids. Being a parent is not an easy job! This post is not about the parents at this school. It is about should this policy be expanded to public schools. Like many of us, he is doing what he thinks is best for his kid. As a parent I fully understand and appreciate his view.
John Konop
October 2nd, 2012
4:29 pm
Jim Chaput,
… trashing the Bill of Rights..
What part of private school do you not understand? He already said he did not support the policy for public schools. And he also understands the issues with criminalizing the behavior.
W Dad
….I agree with you. Well put..
I wrote
…………I want to make it clear as a private school they can do what they want. This post was about expanding this to public schools. And my fear is this will only add to the failed “War on Drug” policy that especially hurts working class families. A study at Ohio State claims this is one of the highest contributors to the increase in poverty. I would be against this policy until we start treating the issue as a health problem not a “Scarlet Letter” for life. I find it even more hypocritical, because many pushing the policy had the same youthful mistakes, and under the same policy I wonder how their life would of turned out?……
Thinker
October 2nd, 2012
5:20 pm
There are multiple challenges with this policy program.
If I am not mistaken in the past Woodward, like its peer institutions, identified problem students and they were asked politely to not return. This system met each stakeholders’ needs; problem children left and received proper counseling, classrooms were free of trouble makers, parents knew their children could focus on school work and students grew into adulthood. This worked in the past, what changed now?
The new program presents many questions and challenges. Will the testing truly be random, or will the children of board members and donors skirt the system? Will statistical anomalies be reported? Will otherwise quality kids be shamed after a positive test? Will this program enhance student life in any meaningful way? How will Woodward graduates respond during their first taste of freedom in college? Will substance abuse outcomes be tracked in post graduation? How does this program effectively educate students about the real risks of drugs and alcohol? And finally, what does this policy reveal about Woodward as an institution?
Many of us have seen classmates, coworkers, friends and perhaps even family struggle with substance problems. And yes, early detection is easier than a few stints in rehab. However, do these outliers warrant treating underage students like probationers and parolees? Don’t these problem cases manifest themselves with easily identifiable symptoms anyway?
And perhaps this is off topic, but at a time when cannabis legalization bills are on multiple election ballots, why are some organizations doubling their efforts to identify drug users, primarily cannabis users? I do not use myself, but I am cognizant of our national spending on cannabis prohibition.
FJ
October 2nd, 2012
8:31 pm
Fantastic post, Thinker!
mgdawg
October 2nd, 2012
9:43 pm
I really don’t understand what the big deal is. First it is a private school, if you don’t like it take your kids somewhere else. Second, if your kids aren’t doing drugs you shouldn’t have a problem with it and should probably like that your kids aren’t going to school with people doing drugs. Third, I have had only a couple of full time jobs and for both of them I was drug tested. This was not them accusing me of doing drugs, this was them protecting themselves because they may have interviewed me but they don’t really know who I am. Most jobs are implementing drug testing, so eventually they will be tested.
Sandy Springs Parent
October 2nd, 2012
10:35 pm
My biggest question is what is going to happen to all the kids with ADD or ADHD? My daughters can not pass a drug test due to ADHD Drugs. About 1/2 the kids in Private school take them because admin ask them too
Dekalbite
October 2nd, 2012
10:40 pm
On drug testing adults – As a teacher for three decades (and also a business person for a decade), I would have been extremely insulted if someone had asked me to pee in a cup. There seems something degrading about being asked to give my urine to anyone but my doctor. However, my daughter teaches at a private school, has to pee in a cup, and she is not insulted at all so perhaps it’s a generational thing.
As for drug testing students, I do not think that will deter them for numerous reasons, and it certainly won’t educate them about why they should not do drugs – on the contrary – it sends the message of don’t get caught. IMHO – involving teens in sports, service organizations, and church activities as well as encouraging them to develop more healthful outlets from horse back riding to dancing to volunteering in homeless shelters to building homes for Habitat for Humanity to joining the Drama club, etc. are much more effective in deterring drug use. Many teens experiment with drugs out of boredom, peer pressure, and low self esteem. Getting them out of their own heads and into the world at large creates less of a opportunity and attraction to turn to drugs to the extent of messing up their lives.
Again, it comes back to parents. Drug testing at schools seems a way for some if not many parents to abrogate their responsibility. It seems we have enough of this already going on in schools. You don’t just lock away your kid until he/she becomes 18 and then figure he/she has the good sense to steer clear of all temptation. For many when they get to college, all hell breaks loose unless they have some anchor to moor them to good values.
Atlanta Mom
October 2nd, 2012
10:50 pm
And doncha know, all the kids had poppy seed bagels for breakfast on the morning of those drug tests. Probably ate them all week.
Fred ™
October 3rd, 2012
1:00 am
Woodward Dad
October 2nd, 2012
1:36 pm
Fred,
Sounds like Dr. Gulley went to the highest source for enlightenment. LOL I heard he took a survey at the Brake Pad too! (just kidding)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually I was mistaken. They didn’t discuss it. I thought when she told me about it the other day that she had, but their meeting was about a different issue.
As to your smart ass comment about the highest sources? It wasn’t so smart assed. HAD he consulted her he would have been consulting a peer. My wife has been a college President before just as Gulley has been………..
Woodward Dad
October 3rd, 2012
7:12 am
Relax Fred. I was trying to interject a little humor into a discussion that had gotten personal between some of the posts. That’s why I said LOL and commented on the Brake Pad. The point I was making is Dr. Gulley takes lots of input before he makes a decision of this magnitude. He has contacted me on issues in my area of expertise before making a policy decision. Random drug testing of students is a major policy decision and it would not surprise me if he went to the highest sources of enlightenment: our wives.
Another Comment
October 3rd, 2012
10:21 am
Woodward has to set the way at hiding the secrets. What happened to the last Headmaster? Didn’t he jump from a midtown hotel?
It is well know in the Teenage twitter world that Woodward is Weedward,
The real kicker about this policy, is that when your child is kicked out of a private school, you do not get your check for $20 + grand back. Ussually, you have multiple kids in the school and you are so made you want them all out at the same time.
I remember we all got pulled from a private school, when I was in sixth grade, over an incident with my brother. I had always thought it was that they were going to fail him and he would end up in the same grade as my youngest sister. But now in her mid 80’s my mother is talking. Tuition for 4 kids is alot of money, no matter how small it was back in the 1970’s. The teacher was locking my brother up in a closet with what they in the 1970’s called a “mentally retarded boy” for hours. My mother has told me that she thought it was too wild a story to believe, and didn’t believe my brother at first. Then when he repeatedly told her, she went in to confront the Principal. My mother says that women just sat their and looked at her with a smirk on her face and she knew it was true. So out all 4 of us went. No tuition refund.
Woodward will be adding to the bottom line. Kid out after two outs. Gone will not only be that kid, but 2, 3, 4 + other kids in the middle of the year. Woodward starts calling up the waiting list. Would you like to come now. Of course the answer is yes. I got my child in to Private School in January, after going to open Houses and being approached. If you pay 1/2 years tuition you can start right after Christmas. You are so frazled by Public School you go. My child took the place of a child of a prominent Surgeon’s Child from St. Joe’s who had been booted for pulling the chair out from under girls and laughing ( how do I know, this girl and other girls became her best friend and couldn’t wait to tell her). I am sure that Woodward will have a line of those who find Whitefield too Religious. They don’t like Whitefield’s Christmas break project of converting a non-believer over Christmas Break.
John Konop
October 3rd, 2012
10:55 am
I live in Cherokee County and have no dog in this fight about the quality of education at Woodward. I am very familiar about the excellent reputation of the school. My son played travel soccer with a few students from Woodward. From the parents and students I have met, overall I heard very positive feedback. If I lived near the school my wife and I would of been proud to send our children to this school.
You may disagree with this policy at the school. But spewing hate at one of the top private schools in the country does not lend creditability to your argument. As I said for public schools, I am against the policy. But at a private school, I do have some reservations, but it would not stop my wife and I from sending our kids to one of the best private schools in the country!
Mr. Nice Guy
October 3rd, 2012
11:11 am
Woodward Academy, like many similar high-toned private educational institutions, has an honor code, prominently featured on their web site:
“Recognizing that Woodward Academy was founded upon the ideals of personal honor and integrity, upon my honor, I promise not to lie, steal, cheat, plagiarize or assist others in those actions.”
Random drug testing says to the student body their “personal honor and integrity” means little and that they are suspects until proven innocent. You can’t have it both ways.
Ex-Woodward Mom
October 3rd, 2012
4:26 pm
Woodward rarely gets anything wrong. Our child was there for three years but we were forced to withdraw due to the economy. We are not rich by any means, just reordered our priorities and made some sacrifices for our child. We would love to return because it is an ideal learning environment for the child who thrives in a structured environment. I am in total agreement with any policy that keeps disruptions and foolishness to a minimum in an academic setting. Teachers are not made to be police officers and social workers at Woodward Academy and that’s just one reason why it’s such an outstanding school.
Fred ™
October 3rd, 2012
6:28 pm
Ex-Woodward Mom: Have you checked in any of the scholarship programs? I have one child and like you, we make MANY sacrifices for her to be in school. Luckily we have so far survived this economy and our sacrifices are doing it. I know they have tuition programs, have you looked into them? We would love to have you back.
Ex-Woodward Mom
October 3rd, 2012
7:14 pm
Thanks for that Fred. We would love to be back in the Woodward family and definitely plan to make our way back home when we can. Our child was not eligible for financial aid due to her grade level. She was an excellent student there and well regarded by her teachers and the administration. She is quite advanced where she’s currently enrolled and is quite the little ambassador for Woodward as all of her current teachers want to know the school she’d previously attended. They are amazed at her level of maturity and academic preparation. She makes sure to credit Woodward for that.
Atlanta Mom
October 6th, 2012
11:14 pm
I understand that this is an emotional topic but, it is really sad to read comments by ADULTS who name call, jeer & make fun of others who have an opinion they don’t agree with. Since this is an article & discussion that focuses on raising our children let us all try to be better examples for them & stick to the opinions & facts, not name calling & belittling each other.
By the way, to the person who commented that the public school down the street is “drug ridden” which school are you referring to & would you please offer some proof of that?
can you say BigBrother?
October 9th, 2012
10:01 pm
All – the *real* reason Woodward is doing this drug testing (not just students, but the very invasive random hair testing of ALL faculty and staff, and *supposedly* of the administration and board) is to lower their insurance premiums. Pure and simple. They just won’t come out and say it, instead brandishing the flag of “It’s for the children!”. Complete and utter BS! Who cares what the housekeeping, kitchen and grounds-crew staff does on weekends… they do an EXCELLENT job for which they are most likely very underpaid. Now they also have to submit to the indignity of possibly monthly (!) hair-cuts for drug testing. Same for the teaching faculty. There has NOT been any reported case of a faculty member being disciplined and/or dismissed for any sort of substance abuse (Dr. Gulley confirmed this at a meeting!) – nevertheless, faculty will be demeaned by being subjected to potentially monthly hair drug tests. Then they will have to reveal their entire medical history to the testing company in case they test ‘positive’ for some prescription drug. And the administration brags that it’s only going to cost them $15,000 / year to do this. Why? The savings on insurance. The reason they *say* it has to be done? “To set a good example for the children”. Ahem…. right…
All I can say is Woodward will never again be on the top 10 places to work in Atlanta. Treat your customers (students/parents) and your employees like crap? Well – there are plenty of excellent schools in town.