A mock election referendum vote asked NHS students about the possibility of random drug testing this past fall with 58.4 percent of students believing testing should be done.

The referendum raised questions within the high school as to whether the possibility of suspicionless random drug testing really is a possibility for future students.

Random drug testing recently became legal for high schools to conduct because of  the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1995 concerning athletes, according to Center on Addiction (COA). In 2002, the Court ruled to expand the parameters of testing to include extracurriculars, such as show choirs and debate club, in Pottawatomie County v. Earls with a 5-4 vote, states the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Through the progression of the drug testing including more and more students besides athletes, many parents, students, and community members have taken sides both for and against the testing for various reasons.

The random drug tests allow for schools to detect drug use early and intervene to prevent serious addiction, states COA. With the schools using their in loco parentis powers, a school district which conducts random drug testing may hope to increase a student’s chance at a successful future. The NIDA explains students will be able to maintain a non-disruptive teaching environment, not only for themselves but for their peers as well. By preventing the use of drugs with the random drug testing, the teen-ager’s brain, which is vulnerable to the harmful drug’s effects especially in their developing years, will continue to be able to judge well and make good decisions.

On the contrary, drug tests remain expensive and many believe, writes COA, they should be spent on “more effective prevention measures.” Numerous studies find mixed results for the effectiveness of random drug testing, but “study authors generally agree that student drug testing should not be a stand-alone strategy for reducing substance use in students” NIDA states. The expensive tests may also be easily altered by students bringing in someone else’s urine or turn to more addictive drugs, such as alcohol and marijuana, that do not show up on the common drug tests. With the incorporation of randomness to the testing, “cheating” the test possibilities will be lowered to minimal amounts. A school could, also, rather improve their entire climate instead of spending money on the drug use. NIDA study results find a positive climate lowers the use of drugs in all students, more prevalently in female students.  

Locally, a Republican lawmaker in Wisconsin drafted a bill requiring high school students participating in extracurriculars or holding a parking permit for a school parking lot to undergo random drug tests in a December article from Fox 11. After lack of support from Wisc. Gov. Scott Walker and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, Rep. Joel Kleefisch from Oconomowoc decided to toss the bill and write a new one allowing parents to request schools to drug test their children through the use of a student’s hair instead of the common urine test method. If the bill had passed, however, would have presented any problems for area school Kimberly High School. According to their online student handbook, “Students requesting parking permits must agree to random suspicionless drug testing.” Kaukauna High School holds a similar random suspicionless drug testing policy, not regarding their parking permits but for the entirety of the school. In its online handbook, the school reminds students that a refusal of the random drug testing could result up to a five day suspension and submission to drug test.

Xavier High School’s principal, Mike Mauthe, explains the process of how Xavier High school, part of a private Catholic school system, began randomly drug testing all students, no matter of involvement or parking permit. “The policy has been in place for about two years, although this is our first year of testing. We did a year of reviewing the policy and helping our parents, teachers and students learn about the program.” After pulling together a professional committee to evaluate the education program for students about the dangers of drug and alcohol use, Mauthe began actively implementing the new policy. Instead of immediately suspending or expelling a student due to a first positive test, Xavier students “undergo drug and alcohol evaluation and abide by the recommendations of that evaluation.” The student will also be tested 90 days later to show progress. Instead of the traditional urine test method, XHS uses hair for the testing. Mauthe explains the positives and negatives of randomly drug testing an entire school with little funding. Each test is about $40, which is raised through donations from the program’s supporters. Students, also, have shown support because of the new reason for not using drugs or alcohol at parties which takes away pressure, Mauthe stated.

Despite the popularity of random drug testing in area schools, NHS Activities Director Nate Werner believes testing will not be a possibility for NHS in the near future. The possibility has not been brought up to the school board. NHS’ Administrative staff, also, believes random drug testing will cause anxiety and create tension with parents possibly seeing the drug testing as an invasion of privacy. Werner connected the random drug testing to Kimberly High School’s policies of randomly drug testing anyone holding a parking permit. “I don’t agree with this correlation,” he stated. The idea would need tweaking along with research correlating the random drug testing to lower code violations. Right now, NHS online handbook states, “The school reserves the right to test students that school authorities reasonably suspect of being under the influence of an intoxicant, a mood-altering substance, or look-alike substance.”

While the referendum question in November’s mock election raised questions of randomly drug testing students of NHS, students, staff, and community members will not see the institution of testing for years to come, if at all.