Drug testing is a heated topic for both athletes and job candidates. Presently, the media and regulatory authorities focus on mandatory testing for students who love to participate in co-curricular actions. It is essential to review the drug testing policies in schools though the contemporary society focuses on the right to confidentiality.
This sensitive issue needs careful examination. Additionally, drug use among student athletes and teachers remains a grave problem in schools. However, the issue of teacher testing has become normal in court cases because the majority of the educators are of the opinion that the cost and time used to exercise random tests should be utilized efficiently in class.
However, some educators argue that teachers who behave poorly in class need to be tested for drugs in case their supervisors suspect any instance of substance use. Additionally, the institution has the right to conduct drug tests if the school administrator has a feeling that their subordinates abuse drugs.
This is not considering the fact that the exercise may be demeaning. This investigation highlights issues concerning drug test in learning institutions and provides adequate information regarding my position towards the issue. Additionally, it explains vital aspects concerning drug test within learning institutions.
I support the drug test on both teachers and student athletes in institutions because it will prevent athletes from experimenting with drugs. Additionally, it will identify individuals who use drugs to advance their performance in co curricular activities.
Students engaging in athletics and music were subjected to unsystematic testing after former president bush’s government promoted a program that focused on eliminating drug use (Darling, 2005). However, some parents and teachers are labeling the exercise as an ineffective measure of discouraging drug use. This is because they believe that the exercise undermines trust and interferes with students’ privacy (DuPont & Brady, 2005).
The Supreme Court ruled that schools had the capacity to exercise a drug test to students suspected of using drugs. In 2002, there was enactment of a decree requiring that all students participating in athletics undergo a drug test. After this ruling, Bush’s government spent eight million dollars to assist institutions pay for drug test procedures.
Other regions have also supported the drug test because the Florida governance process recently approved a bill that necessitates steroid analysis among student athletes. This is because steroid use among student athletes has become a contentious concern over the precedent years.
After the supreme ruling, more schools have incorporated the exercise of drug testing as they seek to battle the issue of drug use among student athletes. These programs consist of compulsory testing among student athletes. Consequently, schools have initiated drug testing to all co curricular students (DuPont & Brady, 2005). Drug testing in institutions grew is attributable to the efforts geared towards fighting drugs.
In 1980, drug test among citizens was a rare activity only exercised only by law officers on grounds of suspicion. After some time, there were numerous cases of substance use among the population. This propelled the desire for compulsory drug test. This inclination broadens from the public sector to public institutions with an intention of testing student athletes.
The continued campaign to eradicate drug use in America is taking a positive turn (Owings & Kaplan, 2004). After the invasion of drug testing in organizations, this trend has shifted primarily to learning institutions.
This exercise is significant because it will minimize the tendency of student athletes to commence using drugs to advance their performance in sporting activities. Drug test among student athletes will assist these adolescents to shun substance use. According to Conlon (2005), the possibility of student detection will play a significant role in convincing them to stop using drugs.
Moreover, this exercise will spot drug users and allow both counselors and parents to intervene early and assist these students recover from the habit early enough. Additionally, this exercise will easily detect student athletes who are highly dependent on drugs. This will enhance adequate arrangements to ensure that these students seek quick treatment or join rehabilitation programs.
It is essential to detect student athletes using drugs during initial stages because the possibility of an individual recovering from an addiction reduces according to his or her dependency (Conlon, 2005). The bulk of individuals start abusing drugs while in school. Even though some people regard this activity safe as long as it does not lead to addiction, these innocent experiments can be detrimental because several individuals will find it hard to cease from substance use.
Therefore, a drug test exercise will discourage student experimentation with drugs minimizing the hazards associated with substance use. One cannot neglect the numerous cases of drug use among students. Most individuals do not grasp the extent of this issue that educators are trying to solve. Some reports reveal that nearly fifty percent of student athletes have used drugs during sport competitions clearly depicting the magnitude of this issue (Conlon, 2005).
However, for an institution to initiate a drug test program, the first step is analyzing requirements. Foremost, the institution needs to figure the height of drug use in the general community and among student athletes.
According to (Wong, 2010) there is need to conduct small surveys among students and parents to judge the necessity of the program. If there is a clear need for this program, the institution may go ahead to seek funding for the project. Even though the institution can seek other means to obtain funds, the community must also contribute funds towards the program.
These funding from the community would be a worthwhile investment in future and would be much minimal than what drug related accidents could cost the community in general in case these measures lack (Wong, 2010). An individual detected to using drugs through this program must undergo serious intervention by teachers and counselors because it will assist the student to return to full productivity.
It is essential to refer students with a high dependency on drugs to a treatment program so that they can receive medical assistance. Implementation a drug test program will prove to be a deterrent against substance use in learning institutions (Brendtro & Martin, 2006). Furthermore, separation of these students from substance use will culminate in the emergence of a generation that is free from drug.
Apart from testing students, exercising a drug test to teachers remains a sensitive issue. Random testing of teachers proves to be an expensive exercise. The funds allocated for this testing should instead be directed to education supplies or salaries. Additionally, the school administration could save huge amounts of money by exercising a drug test only for teachers who exhibit erratic behaviors.
Some reports reveal that some teachers have successfully sued their work institutions for drug testing. These numerous cases have propelled the court to rule that random testing of teachers tends to violate their civil rights but agrees that a drug test to teachers is only necessary in case they behave in an erratic manner.
Before hiring of teachers, the majority of school districts necessitate that teachers undergo a drug test and most teachers argue that this practice has the capacity of eliminating unfit teachers. This reduces the need for further testing in future (Russell & Classey, 2005). If an outcome of a drug test is positive, some teachers may lose their jobs while others may seek drug counseling, subjecting the teachers to needless embarrassment.
Random testing proves to be a contentious attempt to fight drug use among students but the cons related with this testing have propelled both parents and teachers to rethink the effectiveness of this exercise. These random tests are at times unreliable and can give the administrators a fake sense of security.
Moreover, though these tests can detect individuals using drugs, it does not guarantee an alteration in behavior on drug use compared to counseling programs (Russell & Classey, 2005). A case favoring indiscriminate testing is that it deters abuse. Additionally, the main intention of administrators implementing a drug policy is to increase the need to refrain from drugs.
Conclusively, drug test will allow the athletes and teachers to acknowledge that dug use is improper. Stern measures will deter both teachers and students from abusing drugs. It is clear that relevant cases and instances of drug abuse provide the necessary insight into the corrective procedures.
Brendtro, L. & Martin, A. (2006). Respect versus surveillance: Drug testing our students. Reclaiming Children & Youth, 15(2), 75-81.
Conlon, C.K. (2005). Urineschool: A study of the impact of the Earls decision on high school random drug testing policies. Journal of Law & Education, 32(3), 297-319.
Darling, N. (2005). Participation in extra-curricular activities and adolescent adjustment: Cross-sectional and longitudinal findings. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 34(5), 493-505.
DuPont, R. & Brady, L. (2005). Drug testing in schools: Guidelines for effective use. Center City, Minn: Hazelden.
Owings, W. & Kaplan, L. S. (2004). Best practices, best thinking, and emerging issues in school leadership. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin Press.
Russell, B., & Classey, S. (2005). Adolescent attitudes toward random drug testing in schools. Journal of Drug Education, 35(3), 167-184.
Wong, G. M. (2010). Essentials of sports law. Santa Barbara, Calif: Praeger