Journal of Youth and Adolescence

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 146–155 | Cite as

Student Drug Testing in the Context of Positive and Negative School Climates: Results from a National Survey

  • Sharon R. Sznitman
  • Sally M. Dunlop
  • Priya Nalkur
  • Atika Khurana
  • Daniel Romer
Empirical Research

Abstract

Positive school climates and student drug testing have been separately proposed as strategies to reduce student substance use in high schools. However, the effects of drug testing programs may depend on the favorability of school climates. This study examined the association between school drug testing programs and student substance use in schools with different climates. The analysis was based on a nationally representative sample of 943 high school students (48% female) ranging from 14 to 19 years of age (62% identifying as white, 18% Hispanic, 13% African American, and 7% in other categories). Results showed that both male and female students in schools with positive climates reported lower levels of personal substance use. Drug testing was associated with lower levels of personal substance use in positive school climates, but only for female students. There was no relationship between drug testing and male students’ substance use. The results are discussed in terms of the importance of considering school climates before implementing drug-testing programs in high schools.

Keywords

Adolescence Student drug testing School climate Substance use 

References

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics, & Committee on Substance Abuse and Council on School Health. (2007). Testing for drugs of abuse in children and adolescents: Addendum-testing in schools and at home. Pediatrics, 119(3), 627–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bachman, J. G., O’Malley, P. M., Schulenberg, J. E., Johnston, L. D., Freedman-Doan, P., & Messersmith, E. E. (2008). The education-drug use connection: How successes and failures in school relate to adolescent smoking, drinking, drug use, and delinquency. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  3. Bond, L., Patton, G., Glover, S., Carlin, J. B., Butler, H., Lyndal, T., et al. (2004). The Gatehouse project: Can a multilevel school intervention affect emotional wellbeing and health risk behavior? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58, 997–1003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Booth, J. A., Farrell, A., & Varano, S. P. (2008). Social control, serious delinquency, and risky behavior. Crime & Delinquency, 54(3), 423–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., Oesterle, S., Fleming, C. B., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). The importance of bonding to school for healthy development: Findings from the social development research group. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 252–261.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CDC. (2003). Public health surveillance for behavioral risk factors in a changing environment. MMWR, 52(RR-9), 1–12.Google Scholar
  7. Center for Social and Emotional Education & Education Commission of the States. (2009). The school climate challenge, narrowing the gap between school climate research and school climate policy, practice guidelines and teacher education policy. New York, NY: Center for Social and Emotional Education and Education Commission of the States. http://www.schoolclimate.org/climate/documents/school-climate-challenge.pdf
  8. Faggiano, F., Vigna-Taglianti, F. D., Versino, E., Zambon, A., Borraccino, A., & Lemma, P. (2005). School-based prevention for illicit drugs use. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2(CD003020).Google Scholar
  9. Flay, B. R., Graumlich, S., Segawa, E., Burns, J. L., & Hiolliday, M. Y. (2004). Effects of 2 prevention programs on high-risk behaviors among African American youth. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 158, 377–384.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Foxcroft, D. R., Ireland, D., Lister-Sharp, D. J., Lowe, G., & Breen, R. (2005). Longer-term prevention for alcohol misuse in young people: Cochrane systematic review. International Journal of Epidemiology, 34(4), 758–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Giordono, P., & Cernkovich, S. (1997). Gender and antisocial behavior. In D. M. Stoff, J. Breiling, & J. Maser (Eds.), The handbook of antisocial behavior (pp. 496–510). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Goldberg, L., Elliot, D. L., MacKinnon, D. P., Moe, E. L., Kuehl, K. S., Yoon, M., et al. (2007). Outcomes of a prospective trial of student-athlete drug testing: The student athlete testing using random notification (SATURN) study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(5), 421–429.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldberg, L., Elliot, D. L., MacKinnon, D., Moe, E. K., Nohre, L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2003). Drug testing to prevent substance abuse: Background and pilot study results of SATURN student athlete testing using random notification) study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32(1), 16–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gottfredson, D. C., & Wilson, D. B. (2003). Characteristics of effective school-based substance abuse prevention. Prevention Science, 4(1), 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansen, W., & Dusenbury, L. (2004). Alcohol use and misuse: Prevention strategies with minors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  17. Harrison, L. D., Martin, S. S., Enev, T., & Harrington, D. (2007). Comparing drug testing and self-report of drug use among youths and young adults in the general population. Rockville, MD: Substance Use and Mental Health Service Administration, Office of Applied Studies.Google Scholar
  18. Henry, L. H., & Slater, M. D. (2007). The contextual effect of school attachment on young adolescents’ alcohol use. Journal of School Health, 77(2), 67–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hingson, R., & Kenkel, D. (2004). Social, health, and economic consequences of underage drinking. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  20. Jessor, R., Donovan, J. E., & Costa, F. M. (1991). Beyond adolescence: Problem behaviour and young adult development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2008). Monitoring the future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2007 (Vol. I): Secondary school students. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.Google Scholar
  22. Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2011). Monitoring the future: National results on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings, 2010. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/mtf-overview2010.pdf.
  23. Kern, J., Gunja, F., Cox, A., Rosenbaum, M., Appel, J., & Verma, A. (2006). Making sense of student drug testing, why educators are saying no. New York, NY: Drug Policy Alliance. http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/makingsensesdt.pdf.
  24. LaRusso, M. D., Romer, D., & Selman, R. L. (2008). Teachers as builders of respectful school climates: Implications for adolescent drug use norms and depressive symptoms in high school. Journal of Youth Adolescent, 37(4), 386–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. LaRusso, M. D., & Selman, R. L. (2003). The influence of development and school atmosphere on adolescents’ perceptions of risk and prevention: Cynicism and skepticism. In D. Romer (Ed.), Reducing adolescent risk: Toward an integrated strategy (pp. 113–122). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Libbey, H. (2004). Measuring student relationship to school: Attachment, bonding, connectedness, and engagement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 274–283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McKeganey, N. (2005). Random drug-testing of schoolchildren. A shot in the arm or a shot in the foot for drug prevention? York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. http://www.drugslibrary.stir.ac.uk/documents/randomtest.pdf.
  28. McNeely, C., & Falci, C. (2004). School connectedness and the transition into and out of health-risk behavior among adolescents: A comparison of social belonging and teacher support. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 283–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mears, D. P., Ploeger, M., & Warr, M. (1998). Explaining the gender gap in delinquency: Peer influence and moral evaluations of behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35(3), 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Highway Traffic Safety Agency. (2008). 2007 traffic safety annual assessment-alcohol-impaired driving fatalities. Washington, DC. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811016.pdf.
  31. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2009). Tobacco addiction. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/TobaccoRRS_v16.pdf.
  32. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2010). Marijuana abuse. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. http://www.drugabuse.gov/PDF/RRMarijuana.pdf.
  33. ONDCP. (2002). What you need to know about drug testing in schools. Washington DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy, Drug Policy Information Clearing House. http://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/drug_testing.pdf.
  34. Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. J. (2000). School as a context of early adolescents’ academic and social-emotional development: A summary of research findings. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 443–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. SHPPS. (2006). SHPPS 2006 data files and documentation: National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Adolescent and School Health. http://www.cdc.gov/healthyYouth/shpps/2006/data/school.htm, Accessed September 21, 2001.
  37. Simons-Morton, B., Crump, A., Haynie, D., & Saylor, K. (1999). Student-school bonding and adolescent problem behavior. Health Education Research, 14(1), 99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Svensson, R. (2003). Gender differences in adolescent drug use, the impact of parental monitoring and peer deviance. Youth Society, 34(3), 300–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thomas, R., & Perera, R. (2006). School-based programmes for preventing smoking. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 3(CD001293).Google Scholar
  40. United States Supreme Court. (1995). Vernonia school district no. 47 vs. Action.Google Scholar
  41. United States Supreme Court. (2002). Board of education of independent school district no. 92 of Pottawatomie County vs. Earls.Google Scholar
  42. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2004). The health consequences of smoking: A report of the surgeon general. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2004/complete_report/index.htm.
  43. Weishew, N. L., & Peng, S. S. (1993). Variables predicting students’ problem behavior. Journal of Education Research, 87(1), 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. West, P., Sweeting, H., & Leyland, A. (2004). School effects on pupils’ health behaviours: Evidence in support of the health promoting school. Research Papers in Education, 19, 261–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yamaguchi, R., Johnston, L. D., & O’Malley, P. M. (2003). Relationship between student illicit drug use and school drug-testing policies. Journal of School Health, 73, 159–164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yu, C.-Y., & Muthén, B. (2002). Evaluation of model fit indices for latent variable models with categorical and continuous outcomes. Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles, Graduate School of Education & Information.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sharon R. Sznitman
    • 1
  • Sally M. Dunlop
    • 2
  • Priya Nalkur
    • 3
  • Atika Khurana
    • 4
  • Daniel Romer
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Public HealthUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.School of Public HealthThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.The Heller School of Social Policy and ManagementBrandeis UniversityWalthamUSA
  4. 4.Annenberg Public Policy Centre, Adolescent Communication InstituteUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations