SCHOOL DRUG TEST VIOLATES RIGHTS, COUPLE CONTENDS

Policy Says Students Who Don't Get Screened Face Punishment

LOCKNEY, Texas - For Larry Tannahill, the issue of testing Lockney students
for drug use is a constitutional one.

"To me, they're telling these kids they are guilty until they prove
themselves innocent," he said.

But for many in this South Plains community of about 1,200, drug testing is
no more invasive than a tetanus shot, and every bit as necessary.

"You can't get a good education when somebody who is drunk or under the
influence of something . . . is disrupting your class," high school junior
Jeffrey Hunter said.

Lockney school officials late last year approved drug, alcohol and tobacco
screening for all students from grades six through 12. Those initial tests,
administered last week, will be followed by random tests the remainder of
the school year.

Only one set of parents - Mr. Tannahill and his wife Traci - declined to
give permission for the screenings, school officials have said. Now the
Tannahills are asking officials to back off plans to punish their
sixth-grade son, Brady.

District policy calls for in-school suspension, suspension from
extracurricular activities and drug-counseling sessions for students who
test positive or refuse to take the screening test.

For now, school officials are holding off on punishing his son, Mr.
Tannahill said. They met with Mr. Tannahill on Friday, but nothing was
resolved, Mrs. Tannahill said.

School Superintendent Raymond Lusk is no longer talking to reporters about
the controversy. But when the issue was being discussed last November, he
said officials wanted to institute testing as a deterrent to drug use. The
idea was that students would be less likely to use drugs if they knew they
might be tested and caught.

Substance abuse in Lockney is no more prevalent than in similar-sized
communities, school officials have said. There is no evidence that
substance abuse may be increasing, Mr. Lusk has said. But teachers,
administrators and parents are concerned about the issue and prompted board
members to adopt a testing policy.

Kathy Hunter, Jeffrey's mother who also teaches in the elementary school,
is among those applauding the school board's decision to enact a testing
policy.

"I compare it to children being inoculated before they come to school - for
the health of the entire human population," said Mrs. Hunter, who also
submitted to the drug test, as did all other teachers and staff members.
"If drugs are rampant, that affects so many people in so many ways. I
believe it is OK to do this [drug testing] because it's for the common good."

Mr. Tannahill, 35, who also has a son in fifth grade not yet affected by
the drug-testing policy, does not agree. He said the school's involvement,
however well-intended, interferes with his responsibility as a parent.

"One of my arguments has been if you think you've got a problem with one of
my boys, call me. I'll take care of it. That's my job. The good Lord gave
them to us, not to the school district," he said.

Mr. Tannahill, a Floyd County farmer, said he is a product of Lockney
schools; he graduated in 1982. He sees irony in his dispute with the school.

"When I went to school here, they had to teach me our Constitution," he
said. "And they taught me that if you don't stand up for your rights, they
will be taken away from you. That's what I'm doing - I'm standing up for my
son's rights."

Mr. Tannahill said the drug-testing policy violates the Constitution's
Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure.

He said school officials have no authority to test for drugs without cause
and he has threatened court action if the district proceeds with its new
policy.

"They're going to punish my child because I believe in the Constitution.
That's not right," he said. "They're not only taking him out of
extracurricular activities, they're going to punish him in academics. You
have a right to go to school, to get an education. I really think they went
too far with this."

The courts have been involved in school drug-testing cases before. A U.S.
Supreme Court action in October allowed an Indiana school district to
continue drug testing of students without cause. That decision, however,
set no precedent since it was not a ruling but only allowed a federal
appellate court's decision to stand, officials said.

Legal experts do not agree whether the Indiana case will affect a federal
case pending from Tulia, Texas, which challenges that district's ability to
screen all students participating in extracurricular activities. The ruling
in the Tulia case could set a precedent for schools that want to test
without cause.

Lockney officials have said they are confident their policy will stand up
in court. They have been talking about a testing policy for two years,
rejecting one proposal before adopting this one.

"I think the school district was being very careful to do the right thing,"
Mrs. Hunter said. "They wanted to carefully consider the options and find
the best possible way to help the most students."

A few days after approving a preliminary testing policy in November, school
board President Bernie Ford said he had mixed feelings about it.

"I don't believe it is totally the school's responsibility, but I think
society is forcing it on us," he said. "People want the school to do something.

"I voted against it last time, and I'm not sure if I did the right thing. I
voted for it this time, and I'm not sure if I did the right thing. It's a
no-win situation because we're even having to talk about it."