RULING COULD FLUNK DRUG TESTS

Challenges To Policy At School Headed To Supreme Court

A federal court battle being waged over the drug-testing policy used in the
Tecumseh, Okla., public school system is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court
where a final decision would have an affect on many area schools - and in
fact, on most schools throughout the nation.

All but a handful of area schools have a policy that requires certain
students, often athletes, to submit to random drug-testing. The Tecumseh
district not only tested athletes, but other students who participated in
extracurricular activities.

It is the testing of students involved in non-athletic extracurricular
activities that has been challenged by two former students and one current
Tecumseh student. They claim the policy infringes on their constitutional
guarantees of privacy, due process and equal protection as well as the
constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches.

Policies similar to the one implemented by the Tecumseh district have been
adopted by school districts at Columbus, Kan., and Commerce, Okla., both of
which are under the jurisdiction of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Board members in those districts are considering changing their policies in
light of a recent ruling by the Denver-based appellate court that bans the
random testing of students involved in non-athletic extracurricular
activities in Kansas, Oklahoma, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The
ruling now does not affect schools outside of those states, but a ruling
from the Supreme Court would.

Steve Wright, a Columbia lawyer who specializes in education law, said he
has advised Missouri school districts to take a cautious approach toward
testing. "I have always advised them against testing non-athletes," he
said. "There is no reason they should become the test case."

Wright said the ruling by the 8th Circuit differed from the 10th Circuit's
recent decision. "In fact, the 8th Circuit has issued a contrary ruling
that says it is OK to drug-test kids who are engaging in activities that do
not carry school credit," he said. "Ultimately it's an issue that the U.S.
Supreme Court is going to have to decide."

Legal advisers in states affected by the 10th Circuit's decision are
advising school districts to change their policies.

"Our general recommendation is that in the absence of reasonable suspicion,
we don't think there should be random testing," said Cindy Kelly, an
attorney with the Kansas Association of School Boards. That means that even
the testing of students involved in sports would be prevented, she said.
"To conduct random testing, the districts will have to show that students
have a lower expectation of privacy and that there is a pervasive drug
culture at the school," Kelly said.

Columbus board members have already begun discussing how they might change
their policy.

In Commerce, those discussions will take place later this summer, according
to Jim Haynes, superintendent. "It will be a tough decision for them," he said.

Sending a message Columbus board members recently balked at changing the
district's policy, thinking students might think they were not serious
about preventing drug use.

"I don't even want to make a motion to rescind the policy because I think
it sends the wrong message to the kids," said Shonda Crossland, a board
member.

Tecumseh school board members voted June 11 to take the issue to the U.S.
Supreme Court. The 10th U.S. Court of Appeals recently rejected the
Tecumseh district's petition to have the full court revisit the issue.

The 8-1 vote followed a 2-1 vote in March by a three-judge panel that found
that it is generally unconstitutional for public schools to require
students in non-athletic extracurricular activities to be tested randomly
for use of illegal drugs.

Tecumseh High School student Lindsay Earls, her sister and another student,
Daniel James, sued the district in August 1998 for allegedly violating
their Fourth and 14th Amendment rights by requiring certain students to
submit to drug testing. Lindsay Earls and James recently graduated from
Tecumseh High School. Lacey Earls will be a junior next year.

The school board's attorney, Linda Meoli, said she felt strongly about the
case and believes the appellate judges' ruling raises many questions. "What
the court said was very nebulous," she said. "They said you have to have an
identifiable drug problem before you can do any kind of testing and that
our evidence was negligible. But, how do you define negligible?"

Lindsay Earls said she hoped the appellate court's decision would prompt
the district to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case. "If it goes all the
way to the Supreme Court, there will be a ruling that will stand for the
entire country and not just here in this area," Lindsay Earls said.

Meoli, the attorney for the Tecumseh School District, said she will file
papers setting the appeal in motion by a deadline at the end of August. She
said she does not know when the court will announce whether it will take
the case. The court could ask for argument in the case and then issue an
opinion, or decline to hear the case.

'I Think It's Fair'

Area educators, school district patrons and students seem to favor random
testing of students by school districts.

"I think it's fair," said Eric Braxton, who recently graduated from high
school in Columbus. "Everybody knew about it. They were told if they had a
problem they should go to the principal or one of the counselors."

During the last school year, the names of about 300 Columbus students in
grades seven through 12 were randomly drawn for testing. Two students
tested positive, according to Ken Jones, superintendent.

"I think it works," said Dawn Christmas, a patron in the Columbus
district. "If you know you're going to be tested, then you're going to be
less likely to use drugs." She said she did have some questions about
whether the testing was fair. "I think they should test everyone, and I
mean everyone, teachers included," Christmas said. "I know a lot of the
kids think that, too."

Mary Richards, who has two children attending school in Columbus, said she
favors testing because she believes it is an effective way to prevent drug
abuse. "I think it (drug testing) is fair," she said. "If they can catch
someone at an early stage of drug abuse, it would help," she said.

Decision Could Force Change

Many, but not all, area educators are supportive of some random drug
testing. In Carl Junction, student athletes in grades seven through 12 are
required to undergo random testing, according to Pam George, high school
principal.

A broad decision by the U.S. Supreme Court could force Carl Junction to
change its policy. "We only require the testing of athletes," George said.
"We think we can justify that because of the safety factor," she said.

An independent testing company visits the Carl Junction junior high and
high school campuses every other week and randomly draws the names of 10 to
12 students.

The selected students then submit to a urine test which is tested for a
wide range of illegal drugs. Less than one percent of the tests came back
positive for illegal drugs, according to George.

"We think it gives the kids an out if they are asked to do something they
shouldn't," she said. "They can just say, 'I'm in the drug testing pool,
and I can't.' That's a little easier than saying, 'I just don't want to.' "

In the Joplin R-8 School District, athletes can voluntarily undergo drug
testing, according to Dr. Matt Spencer, assistant superintendent. "A very
high percentage do participate," Spencer said.

Students who test positive are not punished by the school district, but
their parents are informed.

"The program is designed so that should a student have a positive test, it
is handled discreetly," Spencer said. "It is up to the parents and the
student to decide what course should be taken."

The district provides referrals for treatment and counseling.

Case By Case

Other districts take a much different approach.

The Webb City School District does not test students for drugs.

"Our message is that we do not condone drug use and we do not want drugs
in our schools," said Ron Lankford, superintendent. "But, with testing
you're telling the kids that they're guilty until proven innocent, and
that's not the way we want to do things."

Lankford said he is not sure testing deters students from using drugs or
helps those that are to stop. "When random testing is your main means of
preventing drug use, I think it limits you because when it's random you've
reduced the number of times you're going to come into contact with a kid
who does have a problem and needs help," he said. "That's the most
important thing - finding help for those who need it and convincing them to
accept help."

Lankford said kids who need help benefit from a one-on-one approach. "You
have to deal with these problems on a case-by-case basis," he said. "Each
of these kids is an individual, and random testing doesn't recognize that."