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."