HIGH COURT COULD AFFECT SCHOOL DRUG TEST POLICY

Researcher Sees Potential For Reversal

Administrators in the Conway School District are joining school district
officials throughout Faulkner County in awaiting a Supreme Court decision
that could alter the way that drug tests are administered to students.

Starting at the beginning of the 2001-2002 academic year, Conway will join
Vilonia and Greenbrier in adopting a policy for testing students for drug
use. Taking effect for grades seven through 12, the policy will subject
students engaged in all extracurricular activities to a random testing
procedure.

While the move to testing has been made with a relatively low level of
controversy, the constitutionality of the practice is in question.
Information gathered by University of Arkansas at Little Rock journalism
professor Bruce Plopper has suggested that an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court
decision may set a precedent calling for the reversal of such policies in
Faulkner County and across the nation.

Plopper's involvement with the drug testing issue began while researching
the media's approach to school drug testing. His studies of the issue
brought him to the case of the Tecumseh, Okla., School Board's appeal to
the Supreme Court, a case that could determine the future of school drug
testing.

According to Plopper, the Tecumseh district passed a policy of drug testing
similar to that adopted by the Conway School Board. After a student sued
the district claiming that the testing was a breach of privacy, a federal
district court ruled in favor of the school's policy. The court's decision
was then reversed by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, sparking the
district's appeal to the Supreme Court.

Plopper's findings have raised questions as to whether or not the testing
of students involved in extracurricular activities is a constitutional
practice. Plopper said that the current policy of testing may be targeting
the wrong population, citing that students involved in extracurricular
activities are often heavily supervised, and thus less likely to be using
drugs.

In addition, Plopper claims that the Conway district cannot claim in good
faith that the school system is suffering from a high level of drug-related
disruption. Statistics in a 1999 survey of students showed that 20.6
percent of juniors and 22.3 percent of seniors regularly used drugs or
drank to excess. The same survey also found that 61.1 percent of juniors
and 56.3 percent of seniors were either drug and alcohol free or had only
experimented with the substances once.

The findings of the survey were investigated by Plopper, who claims that
the survey illustrated that more than 95 percent of the students classified
as frequent drug users were not involved in extracurricular activities.

Plopper's analysis has been rebuked to some degree by Conway Superintendent
Steve Fulmer, who claims that the institution of the testing policy goes
far beyond targeting the disruptive behavior of select drug abusers.

"I think it will give students a good excuse not to succumb to peer
pressure," said Fulmer, taking a position favored by most proponents of the
policy.

Fulmer is joined by Conway High School West Principal Johnny Tyler in
saying that the policy justifies its existence by striking a blow to peer
pressure. Tyler said that students in extracurricular activities can feel
more confident in refusing drugs when they have the drug testing policy to
fall back on.

Under the policy, a student who tests positive for drug use will have the
opportunity to appeal the test results and get retested at the cost of the
parents. If the positive result stands, the student's parents will be
notified and the student will be placed on a 20-day probation. During this
time, the student is forbidden from engaging in extracurricular activities,
and must attend counseling. At the conclusion of the probation, the student
is reinstated to the activity, but is required to submit to monthly testing
at the expense of the parents.

Fulmer said that the policy works to give students a way out of drug use
and does not focus its energies on administering punishment.

"I feel like the policy itself is not punitive for any length of time,"
said Fulmer.

Though the policy has been in effect for more than two years in other
districts in Faulkner County, the recent move by Conway to adopt the
testing has spurred some complaints.

"First and foremost, I think it's a bad policy," said Lynn Plemmons, a
Conway attorney with children in the Conway School District. Plemmons said
that the policy sets a negative precedent when it comes to the privacy of
students.

"It violates the right of children to be private in their bodies," said
Plemmons. "It's a bad lesson for schools to be teaching children."

Plemmons said that the long-standing practice of some districts to drug
test athletes and cheerleaders -- a policy adopted by the Mayflower
district -- does not justify a branching out to other areas of activity.
According to Plemmons, student athletes have a "reduced expectation of
privacy" that is borne out of routines such as team showers and having to
submit to physical examinations. Plemmons claims that such terminology
cannot be similarly attached to students participating in other activities,
such as choir or debate.

Plemmons goes further, saying that extracurricular students are put at a
disadvantage due to being subjected to the testing procedure. Since
students involved in activities must submit to the procedure if they are to
continue in the activity, Plemmons said that students opposed to the policy
are afforded little breathing room. Plemmons said that students opposed to
the policy, but wishing to continue their participation in the activity,
may file a petition claiming that the testing violates Article 2 of the
Arkansas Constitution. Beyond that, Plemmons said that students have little
other recourse short of attending a private school.

While Fulmer defends the merits of the testing policy, he said that the
district remains open-mined about opposing viewpoints.

"We allowed for public input in several months time," said Fulmer. "We
didn't want to do it if there wasn't a need."

Such a need is evident to Tyler, who said that the rise in popularity of
undetectable drugs such as methamphetamine and ecstasy have made the task
of spotting and disciplining drug users more difficult. In addition, Tyler
claims that it has become increasingly more difficult for administrators to
spot students at risk for drug use.

"Some of our 'good kids' have experimented (with drugs)," said Tyler.

While Tyler sees a clear need for a testing policy within the district, he
has adopted an open attitude toward the possible ruling from the Supreme
Court. Tyler admits that change may become necessary depending on the
court's actions.

"We're going to have to wait and see what effect this policy is going to
have," said Tyler. "It's a sad day when we start having to test our
students for drugs."