SCHOOL DRUG-TESTING PLAN MISGUIDED

While random drug-testing of public high school students involved in
extracurricular activities has been cleared by the U.S. Supreme Court
and may serve as a deterrent to student drug use, the approach to
drug testing that the Hart district's Governing Board is now
considering seems misguided for at least a few reasons.

First, we acknowledge that while a recent study released by the
National Drug Control Policy and President Bush's "drug czar"
indicated overall teen drug use declined nationally by 23 percent
between 2001 and 2006, some local anti-drug activists, among them
Cary Quashen, founder/director of the nonprofit ACTION substance
abuse and crisis counseling group, dispute those findings.

In any case, denying Santa Clarita has its share of teen drug use
would be folly.

However, rather than random testing for just one or a few segments of
the student population, all students should be included in any such
testing program. It doesn't seem fair unless the testing policy is
across the board. Testing only students involved in extracurricular
activities doesn't square with the fact that those students are often
among the least inclined to use illegal drugs.

At the same time, it would not be prudent to exempt those students
from testing -- not only because everyone should be eligible, but
also to deter the relatively few extracurricular students or athletes
who may use recreational or performance-enhancing drugs.

Voluntary testing would be unfair because it would not include all students.

In order for such a program to be effective, it would need the
support of administrators, coaches, parents and the students
themselves. Greg Lee, the district's diversity coordinator, and
Darryl Adams, district human resources director, recently completed
researching the costs, concerns and legal issues involved in random
testing. At the Jan. 23 Hart Governing Board meeting, Lee and Adams
both reported that most administrators, coaches and parents were
against such a program.

Sean Herron, the board's student representative, said all students he
spoke with were against testing, and that testing would not foster a
positive relationship between students and administrators. Both
Herron and Leslie Littman, head of the Hart District Teachers
Association, suggested the $24,000-$38,000 annual cost of a testing
program could be spent to hire an additional teacher.

Parents who spoke at the Jan. 23 meeting were also opposed.

Board members, including Gloria Mercado-Fortine, Steve Sturgeon and
Dennis King, expressed their disagreement and displeasure with Lee's
and Adams' findings and disagreed with parents who spoke against
random testing. However, they requested Lee and Adams provide
additional information.

Board members also conceded they would need parental and community
support to establish and properly execute a random-testing program.
Based on comments made during the Jan. 23 meeting, such backing is
unlikely to materialize anytime soon.

If the board insists on forcing the issue, it should first thoroughly
research the legal implications of testing for all students, then
move forward with a program only if there is no risk of litigation,
and no concern for fostering a positive relationship between students
and administrators.