Steroids: To Test or To Educate? (continued)

Scholastic Battlefronts

In 1995, school districts were given the final green light to conduct random drug tests of student-athletes. That year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the practice and, in 2002, ruled in Earls v. Tecumseh that students participating in other extracurricular activities could be drug tested too.

Challenges to drug-testing policies, based on asserted violations of privacy rights and the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches, did not sway the court, which voted 5-4 that schools have certain “custodial responsibilities.”

Yet very few school districts – just 4 percent nationally — have subsequently embraced any sort of drug testing program. Even fewer districts include testing for steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs.

“My experience with parents and schools,” said Dean Langdon, superintendent of Lincoln Community High School District 404 in Lincoln, Ill., “is that the idea may sound very attractive until you get to the details. When you start talking about sons and daughters producing urine samples, those messy details can turn off a community."

Langdon said his 960-student district and community have not publicly discussed any kind of drug test (urine vs. hair vs. saliva). In 2002, he said, a local student died from an apparent overdose of ephedra, a now-banned component of many popular dietary supplements. Sixteen-year-old Sean Riggins’ death stunned the community and prompted the school district to launch extensive education programs on the dangers of abused supplements, steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs, but the effort stopped there.

“We didn't take any forward steps with testing,” said Langdon. “People weren't clamoring to take that action. This is a pretty conservative place. Testing for steroids would be on the cutting edge. I think most people here are content to see how the issue plays out, to learn lessons from others. Besides, I haven't heard any talk about steroid abuse in our schools.”

Michael Lindley, superintendent of the New Buffalo, Mich., Area Schools, said much the same thing. In 2002, Lindley and a community group that included school board members, parents, teachers, a pastor, sheriff and social worker attempted to hammer out a school district policy on drug testing. They debated every aspect — the frequency of testing, the kind of test (urine vs. hair vs. saliva), the role of education, appropriate punishment and more. They met week after week for six months.

“Ultimately, we did not develop a program,” said Lindley, who has been superintendent of the 660-student district for 12 years. “The issue absolutely split the community in terms of its advantages and disadvantages. Some people couldn't come to grips with the issues of privacy; others said the district was obligated to do everything possible to protect kids.

“We finally decided we would focus on preventive efforts, educate kids about the dangers and deal with any individual problems as they arose. I don't know if that's sufficient. I wonder if we're doing everything we can. But these days, if the problem isn't obvious, most school districts won't go looking for it. Nobody wants more on their plate.”

A Cost Obstacle

Perhaps the greatest obstacle to drug testing is expense. It’s the reason cited most often by administrators. A basic drug panel for recreational drugs like marijuana, PCP and cocaine costs as little as $15 to $20 per test with steroids many times more.

“Cost always comes into play,” said Kanaby, whose national federation in Indianapolis serves as a governing body for interscholastic athletics and other competitions. “Steroid testing is expensive. I think the cheapest price for a basic steroid test is $50 and it goes up from there. Even at that price, when you multiply the cost of the test by the numbers of students in high school sports, it becomes a major expense.”

For school boards and superintendents, the dilemma is how best to spend limited resources. Is money better spent testing for steroids or in programs aimed at more widespread abuses, such as alcohol or marijuana?

Mike Crilly has pondered that question a lot. He is the 12-year superintendent of the Jefferson Union High School District, a 5,500-student district in Daly City, Calif., south of San Francisco. Beginning with the 2005-06 school year, Jefferson Union implemented a California Interscholastic Federation directive requiring student-athletes and their parents to sign a contract with the district promising not to use steroids without medical approval. The program has worked well and seems, for the moment at least, to be enough, according to Crilly.

“Nobody's pushed for (steroid testing),” Crilly said. “There has been talk at board sessions relative to substance abuse, but never a serious discussion. I think we would have to be facing a more serious situation before that would happen.”