Drug Testing In Schools

The right of schools to randomly test students for drugs has been debated in the courts for years. In a landmark 1995 decision Vernonia School District v. Acton, the US Supreme Court ruled that schools could test student athletes for drug use. Three years later the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (covering Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin) extended the right to test all participants in extracurricular activities, but in 2000 the Indiana Supreme Court banned such testing where the student concerned was not suspected of taking drugs. In 2002 the US Supreme Court ruled that drug testing was permissible for students involved in “competitive” extracurricular activities. Does society’s desire to combat a growing drug problem override the right to privacy?

PROS
Drug use among teenagers is a clear and present problem. Current measures to tackle drugs at the source (i.e., imprisoning dealers and breaking the supply chain) are not succeeding. It is especially important to protect teenagers at an impressionable age and at the time when their attitude to education greatly affects their entire lives.

Some sacrifice of human rights is necessary to tackle the drug problem. Students who do not take drugs have nothing to fear. The purpose of random drug testing is not so much to catch offenders but to prevent all students from offending in the first place. Peer pressure is the primary cause of experimentation with drugs.

Discouraging drug use among athletes, model students, etc., sends a powerful message to the entire student body. Urine, hair, and breath samples can be used to detect use of most common drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines.

CONS
 Our justice system is based on the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. To enforce random drug testing (thereby invading the privacy of students who are not suspected of drug use) is to view them as guilty until proven innocent.

Nothing justifies the sacrifice of the human rights of innocent people. Innocent students do have something to fear—the violation of privacy and loss of dignity caused by a drug test. Other methods of preventing drug abuse are less invasive. These include encouraging extracurricular activities, fostering better relations with parents, tackling the problems of poverty and safety, and so on.

Teenagers, especially drug-taking teenagers, are attracted by rebellion and the chance of beating the system. Draconian, Big Brother–style tactics of random drug testing will only provoke resentment and encourage students to break the law. Peer pressure increases as they unite against school authorities. Drug users will only turn to drugs that are more difficult to test, such as “designer” drugs, or use masking agents before being tested.
Read More : Drug Testing In Schools

Social Anxiety among College Students

Anxiety Sensitivity
Anxiety sensitivity – fear of anxiety-related sensations due to perceived consequences of physical, mental, or social harm – is considered an imperative factor in the maintenance and development of anxiety disorders (Reiss and McNally, 1985). This construct is much more specific than the previously proposed anxiety-related construct of trait anxiety. There is much variability in how prone people are to experience anxiety. Some individuals experience anxiety when minimally provoked, and others require much more stressful circumstances.

Individual differences in how prone one is to experience anxiety is considered trait anxiety (Taylor, 1999). The tendency to see the world as dangerous or threatening or the tendency to become anxious across situations sums up the broad definition of trait anxiety (Beck and Emery, 1985). A more sophisticated conceptualization was offered in a hierarchical model of trait anxiety (Lilienfeld, Turner, and Jacob, 1993). In this model, anxiety consists of one higher-order factor, the general concept of trait anxiety, and three lower-order factors: anxiety sensitivity, fear of negative evaluation, and fear of illness or injury sensitivity. This model later received empirical support (Taylor, 1995). Anxiety sensitivity is conceptually different from trait anxiety in that anxiety sensitivity represents the tendency to fear or respond anxiously to arousal symptoms whereas trait anxiety refers to the tendency to have an anxious response to any stressor or stressors in general (Holloway and McNally, 1987). In sum, the development and severity of a variety of anxiety conditions is determined by three fundamental fears: negative evaluation, fear of injury or death, and anxiety sensitivity (Reiss and McNally, 1985; Reiss, 1991). According to the sensitivity theory of motivation, anxiety sensitivity is a genetically based aversion to anxiety that is combined with beliefs about the negative consequences of anxiety (Reiss and Havercamp, 1996).

Anxiety Sensitivity Index

The Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI; Reiss, Peterson, Gursky, and McNally, 1986; Peterson and Reiss, 1992) was developed to measure and test the theory of anxiety sensitivity. The ASI consists of 16-items asking about the degree to which an individual finds anxiety sensations fearful or catastrophic in outcome (Peterson and Reiss, 1992). Individuals respond to each question on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (“very little”) to 4 (“very much”). A recent psychometric analysis of the ASI was conducted by Zinbarg, Barlow, and
Brown (1997). They found that the ASI is made up of a hierarchy of subscales. The lowest first-order factors assess three areas: physical concerns, mental incapacitation concerns, and social concerns. Most of the items on the ASI address the fear of physical harm resulting from anxious sensations, as reflected in the first factor. Examples of items targeting an individual’s beliefs about mental incapacitation include “When I cannot keep my mind on a task, I worry that I might be going crazy” and “When I am nervous, I worry that I am mentally ill.” Finally, items measuring the feared social consequences of anxiety sensations include “Other people notice when I feel shaky” and “It is important to me not to appear nervous.”

Anxiety Sensitivity and Panic Disorder

Anxiety sensitivity appears to predispose individuals to panic disorder. Lilienfeld (1997) found that anxiety sensitivity predicts a history of panic attacks above and beyond indicators of more general trait anxiety or negative affect. Anxiety sensitivity measures differentiated individuals who experience panic attacks but do not have panic disorder from those who have never had a panic attack (Norton, Cox, and Malan, 1992). Individuals high in anxiety sensitivity are considered to be at greater risk to experience panic attacks and develop panic disorder than individuals with low levels of anxiety sensitivity.

Anxiety sensitivity may develop from direct experience with aversive events such as serious illness or injury. Alternatively, exposure to the serious illness or death of a family member or the influence of an overprotective parent may also contribute to an individual’s vulnerability to anxiety sensitivity (Craske, 1999). Anxiety sensitivity is associated with a heightened level of attention paid to internal physical cues. Individuals who experience panic appear to have an elevated awareness or an increased ability to identify and detect bodily
sensations associated with arousal. This increased ability to detect physical cues may predispose an individual for the development of panic disorder (Craske, 1999).

Initial panic attacks occur in a variety of settings. These locations are often outside of the home (Craske, Miller, Rotunda, and Barlow, 1990), such as while at work or school, while driving, on a plane or bus, in public in general, or in a situation that is socially evaluative (Craske, 1999). Craske and Rowe (1997) proposed that initial panic attacks are most likely to occur in situations where feared physical sensations are perceived as especially threatening because of possible impairment. Examples include driving, fear of being trapped, fear of negative evaluation, or fear of being in an unfamiliar location. Certain situations or contexts are more likely to be linked with negative personal consequences of experiencing anxiety (Craske, 1999).

An intense fear of specific bodily sensations related to panic attacks often develops after an individual experiences the initial panic attack. Following a panic attack, this “fear of fear” is considered a sensitization of the individual’s predisposing trait of anxiety sensitivity. Reiss (1991) described a vicious cycle in which anxiety sensitivity increases the risk of panic attacks and panic attacks increase the levels of anxiety sensitivity. There is considerable evidence demonstrating that panic disordered individuals hold powerful beliefs and fears of
mental or physical harm occurring from bodily sensations associated with panic attacks (Craske, 1999).

Anxiety Sensitivity and Other Anxiety Disorders
The role of anxiety sensitivity has been in examined in other anxiety disorders, particularly social anxiety. However, anxiety sensitivity appears to play a different role in the maintenance of social anxiety disorder than it does in panic. Different anxiety disorders are associated with different patterns of responding on the ASI. For example, Hazen, Walker, and Stein (1995) compared ASI scores of individuals with social phobia to those of individuals with panic disorder. Results suggested a different manner of responding between the two
groups, with the social phobia group having significantly higher scores than the panic disorder group on three items (“Other people notice when I am shaky”, “It is important to me not to appear nervous”, and “It embarrasses me when my stomach growls”), all of which reflect concern for social consequences.

Anxiety Sensitivity and Social Anxiety in College Students
Given that anxiety sensitivity was elevated in individuals with social anxiety (Taylor et al., 1992), researchers have begun to examine anxiety sensitivity and social anxiety in the college student population. Gore, Carter, and Parker (2002) collected self-report measures including the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale (SIAS and SPS; Mattick and Clarke, 1998), Anxiety Sensitivity Index-Physical Scale (ASI; Peterson and Reiss, 1992), and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-T; Speilberger, Gorsuch, and
Lushene, 1970) from 37 university students enrolled in psychology courses. All participants were also presented with a laboratory social challenge task instructing them to ask an “aloof” confederate on a date. Gore et al. (2002) found that while trait anxiety significantly predicted anxiety responses to the social challenge task, social anxiety measures were better predictors than either the ASI-physical subscale or the STAI-T. Thus, the SIAS and SPS combined accounted for more variance than either the STAI-T or the ASI-physical scale when predicting all social challenge task-related state measures. In addition, the higher the
individual’s social anxiety measure scores, the greater the state social anxiety as well as physical symptoms reported after interacting in the social challenge. In regards to anxiety sensitivity, individuals with higher ASI-physical scores did report greater fear during the social challenge. A surprising finding noted by Gore et al. was that the ASI-physical scale was nearly as good at predicting anxiety response as the SIAS and SPS combined. The ASIphysical scale significantly predicted all dependent measures, including the Beck Anxiety
Inventory (BAI; Beck, Brown, Epstein, and Steer, 1988), the Fear of Physical Sensations Questionnaire (FPSQ) which is a modified version of the Agoraphobic Cognitions Questionnaire (ACQ; Chambless, Caputo, Bright, and Gallagher, 1984), and Social State (SocS) which is a state measure adapted from a version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation scale (Watson and Friend, 1969).
Read More : Social Anxiety among College Students

Specific learning disability

Specific learning disability (SpLD) is a term applied by psychologists to approximately two or three children in every 100 whose learning difficulties cannot be traced back to any lack of intelligence, problems with vision or hearing, or insufficient teaching. This small group of learners has ongoing difficulty in mastering basic skills of literacy and numeracy. The experts tell us that SpLD can impair the ability to learn to read (dyslexia), to spell (dysorthographia), to write (dysgraphia), to perform mathematical calculations (dyscalculia), or to recall words, symbols and names quickly from memory (dysnomia). Some children with SpLD also have problems with social relationships – difficulty in making and retaining friends – and a few have minor difficulties with physical skills and coordination.

It is generally true that the difficulties of children with a learning disability are not recognised early enough in school, and many of these children are considered simply to be lazy or uncooperative. In most countries, the
method for identifying children with SpLD is for an educational psychologist to assess the child’s level of intelligence using an intelligence test, and then to obtain accurate measures of ability in reading, spelling and mathematics. Any marked difference between level of intelligence (IQ) and level of attainment in these skills suggests significant ‘under-achievement’ and might indicate the presence of a learning disability.


The most widely recognised learning disability is dyslexia. Dyslexia is often defined as a ‘disorder’ causing difficulty in learning to read despite normal instruction, adequate intelligence and opportunity to learn. This
form of reading problem is thought to be present in approximately 2 per cent of the school population, although some reports suggest a higher figure. The oral reading performance of dyslexic students tends to be very slow and laboured, with great mental effort having to be devoted to the identification of each individual word. Comprehension of what has been  read is therefore usually very poor. The child tires easily and avoids the frustrating task of reading.
A child with dyslexia typically exhibits the following problems:

• Difficulty in analyzing spoken words into separate sounds. This difficulty then causes major problems with learning phonics and spelling.
• Difficulty in recalling words from memory or quickly naming familiar objects. This difficulty in rapid recall then causes major problems in building a memory bank of words recognized immediately by sight, and in remembering letter to sound correspondences.
• Difficulty in making adequate use of the meaning of a sentence to assist with word recognition (teachers refer to this as a weakness in ‘using contextual cues’).
• Inability to develop adequate speed and fluency in reading.
• Weakness in understanding what has been read.
• Perception problems occur in some cases, resulting in frequent reversal of letters and numerals. A few children report distortion or blurring of print when reading.

In addition, many children with dyslexia also exhibit:

• hyperactivity and attention problems
• inefficient learning strategies
• emotional, motivational and behavioural problems due to persistent failure
• learned helplessness, anxiety and depression
• negative attitudes towards reading, writing and mathematics, and towards school in general.

In many cases of dyslexia, as in other types of learning difficulty, the children do not appear to have developed an effective system for approaching tasks such as phonic decoding, reading for meaning or writing a story. Their inefficient approach produces a high error-rate and much frustration. It has become popular in recent years to say that these children need to ‘learn how to learn’ so that they can tackle activities like reading and writing with a greater chance of success. The important thing to note here is that the current evidence suggests that children can be taught to use more efficient learning strategies; this will be discussed in practical terms later.

Dyslexia remains a controversial topic. While some experts argue strongly that dyslexia is quite different from any other form of reading difficulty, others regard it as simply a variation of the same problem. Reading disability has attracted an enormous amount of research interest over the past 50 years, but it is quite clear that this has not resulted in any major breakthrough in special teaching methods or instructional resources.

It is difficult to visualise that any teaching method found useful for children with general problems in learning to read would not also be highly relevant for other children identified as dyslexic – and vice versa. If we examine the literature on teaching methods for children with SpLD, we usually find a range of valuable teaching strategies that would be helpful to all children.

Any child with a learning problem requires assistance, and there seems little to be gained from seeking to differentiate between SpLD and ‘non- SpLD’ students; the need for high-quality, effective instruction is equally strong in both groups. But maybe parents feel more comfort in having their child classified as ‘dyslexic’ rather than ‘a weak reader’. All children who find learning to read and write difficult are best served by designing and delivering intensive high-quality instruction, rather than by identifying them with a label.
Read More : Specific learning disability

Immigrant students

Migration to OECD countries has been increasing in recent decades. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of people living outside of their birth countries increased by a half to approximately 175 million (OECD , 2006b). The effect of the retiring baby-boomer generation as well as the decline of native birth rates will only increase these numbers (OECD , 2008a). The appearance of resulting labour shortages, especially in areas unappealing to the domestic work force, has stimulated international migration movements and will continue to do so. Although temporary labour migrants currently outnumber permanent ones by a factor of three, temporary labour migration increased by 15% from 2003 to 2006, while permanent-type labour migration
in the same period rose by over 50%. Migrants who enter into the resident populations with long-term permits also encourage migration of family members. In fact, family-related entries constitute approximately 44% of migrants to OECD countries (OECD , 2008a).

These statistics demonstrate that migrant families and communities are growing at a rapid pace and many are intending to stay for the long term. In terms of school performance, first-generation students often have difficulty because of the obvious challenges of immigration – learning a new language, adjusting to the culture and social structure of the host country, and adjusting to an unfamiliar school system (OECD , 2006a). One could argue that second-generation3 students should fare better than the first generation because they were born in the host country and grew up speaking the native language. However data from PISA 2003 and 2006 indicate that, on average across all participating countries, native students perform better than both first and second-generation immigrants in mathematics. This overall pattern is particularly troubling as it appears that in a number of countries second-generation students do not perform as well as their “native” peers even though these students were also born and raised in the country. It is also remarkable because, while this is the average across all participating countries, in a number of countries immigrant students perform as well as their
native born peers (e.g. Australia, Canada and New Zealand).

The performance of immigrant students in these countries suggests that it is not inevitable that first and second-generation students perform less well than their peers. These PISA data were key elements driving the argument that improving learning outcomes of migrant students is one of the most important reasons why educational systems have to become more effective and more equitable. It is thus crucial to isolate possible driving factors behind these performance scales and to think more broadly about key policy levers that might be used to address these inequalities. Given the diversity of the population of “immigrant students” in any one country context, there is also a need to disaggregate the data such that different patterns and performance of

subgroups within the broader population can be perceived and appropriately targeted by policy and educational interventions.

One key factor underlying performance is the interest, enjoyment and motivation that students bring with them to the task of learning. Well functioning school systems not only provide students with essential literacy skills, but also with the interest, motivation and confidence required to continue learning throughout life. PISA 2003 and 2006 show that first and second-generation students report a high level of enjoyment and satisfaction with
the topic areas under study (i.e. science and mathematics). They also report comparable or higher future expectations for a career in that subject matter:
first and second-generation students are more likely than native students to report that they expected to continue on to higher education although, in fact, children of immigrants are less likely to move on to higher education. Why is there such a large gap between immigrant students’ motivations and their scholastic performance? This question has no easy answers.

The PISA data suggest that the effect of interest, motivation and a positive self-concept in one’s studies can be overshadowed by the negative effects of other, more challenging characteristics of the learning environment. Several key elements come immediately to mind such as, for example, proficiency in the language of instruction. PISA data demonstrate that there is an effect of speaking a language other than that of instruction at home on students’ mathematics and science performance, and that this is independent of immigration status (i.e. whether students are first or second-generation immigrants). As  might be expected, these differences were more pronounced for the results on reading tests than science or mathematics. One obvious instrument would thus be better language support for second language learners, as well as methods of teaching to students of multilingual backgrounds (OECD , 2006a).

In addition to the language spoken at home, the educational background of parents, the socio‑economic status of the family and parental occupation all have a bearing on the academic success of students in PISA and in other measures of performance. OECD‑ wide, a student with low socio‑economic status is twice as likely to be among the low achievers (i.e. at the bottom quartile of the PISA reading literacy score) compared with the total student population (OECD , 2001). School systems can and do attempt to address these issues, and there has been a great deal of work done on how best to ensure equitable and efficient schooling (OECD , 2007b). A key challenge for OECD countries is to ensure access to fair and inclusive education for migrants and minorities, not only to help ensure successful academic performance of these students but also to enhance social cohesion and trust, essential elements of integration. From both a social and an economic standpoint,

the long-term costs of educational failure are high, as those without the skills to participate socially and economically generate higher costs for health, income support, child welfare and security.

Of course, educational reform can be a long and slow process, and even in those countries or educational systems where strong migrant education policy has been formulated, implementation is often blocked or may progress slowly for a number of different reasons. The reality is that adjusting education systems to improve the achievement of immigrants may be given a lower priority than other pressing issues and lose out in the competition for time and resources (OECD , 2010). Practical constraints also include a lack of capacity, in terms of both time and money, to provide the necessary training and materials. A well-known impediment to change in education is the weak links between research, policy and practice, and the low level of assessment and evaluation of education policies (Burns and Schuller, 2007; OECD , 2009a).
Read More : Immigrant students