Studies show that punitive responses to substance use in schools are not only ineffective but may also cause harm.
Some people believe that zero-tolerance policies and tough-on-drugs tactics will bring about change in students’ attitudes and behaviours. While this belief is understandable, the fact is that they do not work (Paglia & Room, 1999). If anything, strict punitive strategies undermine the powerful protective factor of school connectedness. What is more, they discourage young people from seeking help (D'Emidio-Caston & Brown, 1998).
Evidence suggests that a better way to handle substance use in schools is to focus on restoring the social bonds and relationships that are crucial for building personal resiliency. In other words, schools may get better results from promoting health and healthy relationships than from adding threats of punishment to the learning environment.
Suspension, expulsion, involvement of law enforcement, and other punitive measures have little value on their own. They do not reduce student substance use or substance-related harms and are ineffective in increasing school safety (Beyers, Evans-Whipp, Mathers, Catalano, & Toumbourou, 2005). Instead, punishment-oriented policies tend to heighten emotional problems in youth and, in some cases, increase drug use.
Because punitive measures steer students away from meaningful involvement in school and prevent them from seeking assistance, they can have a detrimental impact on a student’s academic performance and social competence. Moreover, they can force struggling students to simply move their problems from one school to another without ever addressing the underlying issues contributing to their substance use (Skiba & Peterson, 2000).
Drug searches and testing are typically intended to deter drug use (or encourage users to quit using). Some argue that searches and testing also provide early detection (and therefore opportunity for early intervention) as well as increase school safety by reducing risk in the learning environment.
But measures to detect substances in schools—or identify students who use them—are controversial and require careful attention to the rights of students. Searches may be appropriate when there are reasonable grounds. But there is little evidence to suggest that drug detection programs have any positive impact on attitudes and behaviours. That is, they do not deter the initiation of, or encourage cessation of, drug use in schoolchildren (Roche, et al., 2008).
One of the problems is that the drug detection techniques rarely distinguish between experimental and problematic use. Yet common sense dictates that there is a significant difference between a young person who sips wine surrounded by family members and a young athlete who uses performance-enhancing drugs. Similarly, there is a marked difference between a young person using an alcohol-based cough medicine to treat a mild cold and a young person in distress using alcohol to escape daily life (Caan, 2005).
Another problem with drug detection is that it discourages young people from embracing and being proud of their school. It can even encourage riskier “undetectable” drug use among some students (e.g., using less well-known or less detectable drugs that may be more harmful) (Goldberg, Elliot, MacKinnon, Moe, Kuehl, & Nohre, 2003).
Drug detection often results in punishments that further decrease students’ sense of school connectedness and therefore decrease their resilience to substance use problems. Typically, students are banned from extra-curricular activities (such as sports or cultural programs), suspended or expelled, eroding the only sense of belonging that some children may have in their lives. In a minority of cases, students will feel embarrassed, humiliated or distressed by having to undergo drug testing and may therefore withdraw from sports and other activities where drug testing may be more likely to occur (Taras, 2003).) While this may change the number of students who get caught using drugs, it does not change students’ attitudes about school or behaviours regarding drug use.
As a general rule, policies and activities that lessen school connectedness will have a negative impact on students’ health and emotional well-being. They will also increase students’ likelihood of developing depressive symptoms or using tobacco, alcohol or other drugs (Resnick, et al., 1997). Ironically, those students most in need of being connected to the school are most likely to use drugs and are therefore most likely to be excluded (Roche, et al., 2008).
Tackling drug-related issues in isolation of other common “human” problems is unlikely to lead to positive outcomes. Evidence strongly suggests that multiple interventions can act in a synergistic way to both improve educational outcomes and reduce risky behaviours such as harmful substance use (Dusenbury, 2000; Toumbourou, Rowland, Jefferies, Butler, & Bond, 2004). In other words, a school’s best bet is to take a comprehensive approach that addresses substance use through multi-level strategies embedded within the educational and social mandate of the institution.
A fundamental part of the comprehensive approach is to replace punitive polices with alternatives that have demonstrated effectiveness in both reducing drug use and promoting safe and positive contexts in which students can learn and thrive. These alternatives include
Another key part of a comprehensive school approach involves replacing suspension or expulsion with restorative practices that focuses on relationships, changing school culture and strengthening connections (Chmelynski, 2005; Karp & Breslin, 2001; Wachtel, 1999).
A restorative approach
One of the challenges to implementing restorative practices has to do with time. Unlike the swift actions of suspension and expulsion, restorative practices require reflection and collective decision-making. In short, they can take time to effectively develop and implement. Another challenge involves the resistance that can arise from stakeholders who are accustomed to traditional sanctions. However, a comprehensive approach—including communication strategies, awareness-raising and training—can help to mitigate these factors (Karp & Breslin, 2001; Macgregor, 2003; Bargen, 2003).
Allen, D., Coombes, L., & Foxcroft, D. (2006). The role of parents and the community in drug prevention. In R. Midford, & G. Munro (Eds.), Drug education in schools: Searching for the silver bullet. Melbourne, Australia: IP Communications.
Bargen, C. (2003). Safe schools: Strategies for changing a culture. Paper presented at the International Conference on Restorative Justice.
Beyers, J., Evans-Whipp, T., Mathers, M., Catalano, R., & Toumbourou, J. (2005). An international comparison of the school drug policy environments in Washington State, U.S. and Victoria, Australia. Journal of School Health, 75, 134-140.
Caan, W. (2005). Random drug testing in schools. British Journal of General Practice, 55(517), 637.
Chmelynski, C. (2005). Restorative justice for discipline with respect. Education Digest, 71(1), 17-20.
D'Emidio-Caston, M., & Brown, J. (1998). The other side of the story: Student narratives on the California drug, alcohol, and tobacco educational programs. Evaluation Review, 22, 95-117.
Dusenbury, L. (2000). Implementing a comprehensive drug abuse prevention strategy. In W. Hansen, S. Giles, & M. Fearnow-Kenney (Eds.), Increasing prevention effectiveness. Greeensboro, NC: Tanglewood Research.
Faggiano, F., Vigna-Taglianti, F., Versino, E., Zambon, A., Borraccino, A., & Lemma, P. (2005). School-based prevention for illicit drugs’ use. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Goldberg, L., Elliot, D., MacKinnon, D., Moe, E., Kuehl, K., & Nohre, L. (2003). Drug testing athletes to prevent substance abuse: Background and pilot study results of the SATURN (Student Athlete Testing Using Random Notification) study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32(1), 16-25.
Karp, D., & Breslin, B. (2001). Restorative justice in school communities. Youth and Society, 33(2), 249-272.
Macgregor, P. (2003). Restitution implemented in Saanich S.D. #63. Paper presented at the International Conference on Restorative Justice.
Paglia, A., & Room, R. (1999). Preventing substance use problems among youth: A literature review and recommendations. Journal of Primary Prevention, 10 (1), 3-50.
Resnick, M., Bearman, P., Blum, R., Bauman, K., Harris, K., Jones, J., et al. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(10), 823-32.
Roche, A., Pidd, K., Bywood, P., Duraisingam, V., Steenson, T., Freeman, T., et al. (2008). Drug testing in schools: Evidence, impact and alternatives. Canberra, Australia: Australian National Council on Drugs.
Skiba, R., & Peterson, R. (2000). School discipline at a crossroads: From zero tolerance to early response. Exceptional Children, 66, 335-346.
Taras, H. (2003). Out-of-school suspension and expulsion. Pediatrics, 112(5), 1206-1209.
Toumbourou, J., Rowland, B., Jefferies, A., Butler, H., & Bond, L. (2004). Early intervention in schools: Preventing drug‐related harm through school re‐organisation and behaviour management. Melbourne: Australia Drug Foundation.
Toumbourou, J., Stockwell, T., Neighbors, C., Marlatt, G., Sturge, J., & Rehm, J. (2007). Interventions to reduce harm associated with adolescent substance use. Lancet , 369(9570), 1291-1401.
Wachtel, T. (1999). Restoring community in a disconnected world. Bethlehem, PA: International Institute for Restorative Practices.