Pubdate: Wed, 20 Mar 2002
Source: New York Times (NY)
Section: Education
Copyright: 2002 The New York Times Company
Contact:  http://www.nytimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298
Author: Tamar Lewin
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)

SCHOOLS ACROSS U.S. AWAIT RULING ON DRUG TESTS

In tiny Modoc, Calif., 150 people turned out this month to discuss the 
school district's proposal to begin random drug testing of all high school 
students.

"Every other school in our athletic league tests their athletes," said Dr. 
Kevin Jolly, the superintendent in Modoc, which has yet to decide on the 
proposal, "but we thought it would be fairer to test everyone, evenly, 
randomly choosing 10 students a month.

"But of the 150 people who showed up for the meeting, most were against 
it," Dr. Jolly said. "At the meeting a month ago, we had 20 people, and 
they were mostly for it."

In many parts of the country, the issue of school drug-testing has been 
simmering ever since the Supreme Court's 1995 decision in Vernonia School 
District v. Acton upheld the testing of student athletes, who are 
considered leaders of a school's drug culture.

But as Dr. Jolly has discovered, there remains great uncertainty about 
which other students, if any, a school can test. He, like school officials 
throughout the country, is hoping that the confusion will be resolved by a 
case argued before the Supreme Court yesterday, a challenge to an Oklahoma 
school's policy of conducting random drug tests on students who participate 
in extracurricular activities.

"Everyone's been confused these recent years, because no one's sure which 
part of the court's ruling was the important one," Dr. Jolly said. "Was it 
that they were athletes, or that they were leaders of a drug culture? I got 
a 10- page opinion from our lawyer about the situation. At this point, I 
think we would be well- advised to wait for the new decision."

Over the last three years, about 5 percent of schools nationwide have 
performed drug tests on student athletes, and about 2 percent have been 
testing students involved in other extracurricular activities, according to 
the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, which does 
yearly surveys of school principals.

But those numbers might be higher if the court upholds the Oklahoma 
school's policy.

"There are many school districts that would adopt policies if the Supreme 
Court upholds testing," said Julie Underwood, general counsel of the 
National School Boards Association, which backs schools' rights to test 
students involved in extracurricular activities. "It seems to be a regional 
thing, with a lot of interest in places like Indiana, Ohio, Oklahoma and 
Texas. Telling kids to just say no to drugs doesn't work. So as part of 
their arsenal to deter drug use, many schools want the right to make 
students who participate in extracurricular activities submit to random 
drug tests."

Lindsay Earls, the student at the center of the current case, said she 
could not see any reason for her school in Tecumseh, Okla., to test 
students like her, who were not on an athletic team and not part of any 
drug culture. Ms. Earls, now a freshman at Dartmouth, said she was 
uncomfortable -- and felt that her privacy was being invaded -- when she 
was called out of choir in 1999 to have her urine tested for drugs.

"It was really tense, with each girl in a stall, and a teacher we all knew 
outside listening for the sound of urination," Ms. Earls said. "The kids I 
hung out with didn't use drugs. I know the Supreme Court, in the Vernonia 
case, talked about how athletes have a risk of physical harm. But we're not 
going to hurt ourselves in choir."

Just two weeks ago, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that testing was 
acceptable not just for athletes suspected of drug use but for any students 
who drive to school or participate in certain extracurricular activities.

Much of the interest in drug testing, which costs $10 to $15 a student, 
seems to come from small districts that can reach a significant proportion 
of the student body each year by testing only 10 to 20 students a month.

But many districts are hesitant to begin testing until the Supreme Court 
ruling. In Virginia, the Mathews County school board developed a voluntary 
drug-testing program in January but last month decided to delay formal 
consideration of the policy until the Earls case was decided. In Conway, 
Ark., last year, the school board passed a policy similar to Tecumseh's, 
but the superintendent decided to wait for the Earls ruling before 
implementing it.

Hunterdon Central Regional High School in Flemington, N.J., began testing 
about 100 student athletes a year in 1996 -- and in February 2000 added to 
the testing pool those students who participated in extracurricular 
activities or parked on campus.

"We were hearing from a lot of people who thought it was wrong to single 
out the athletes," said Lisa Brady, the principal. "We also felt that 
students in extracurriculars represent the school, that they are often 
taken on overnight trips, and that as a matter of safety, the teachers who 
take them, and the other students on the trip, should have a right to know 
that the people with them are drug-free. So we tested that expanded pool 
from February to June of 2000, and then we got sued by a student who 
wouldn't sign the consent form."

That case is on appeal in New Jersey, with the drug-testing program halted 
until a decision is handed down.

"We're waiting on them," Ms. Brady said, "and my guess is that they're 
waiting on the Supreme Court."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Ariel