STATE, HSTA MUST TAKE CARE IN DRUG-TEST PLANS

Public school teachers have taken a big step -- a fateful one, some
would say -- by authorizing a new program of random drug testing in
the ratification of their union contract.

The real work of putting the program into effect is just beginning,
however. Both sides have some important realities to consider before
the testing can begin more than a year from now.

The acceptance of the contract was clearly a tough decision for the
Hawai'i State Teachers Association rank and file. But it's one that
ultimately will restore some public confidence in the safety of the
campus environment, confidence that had been shaken by a handful of
teacher arrests on drug charges in recent months.

Granted, those scattered episodes should not impugn the reputation of
the state's 13,500 public school teachers: These are educators who
take up the profession largely out of their concern for the future of
our children.

It's the public interest in the welfare of those children that
justifies this initiative: The state should commit to ensuring
classroom environments are drug-free.

Other public-employee unions, the United Public Workers and the Hawaii
Government Employees Association, have advanced further along this
path. Their safeguards are worth studying to see how they might apply
to HSTA, but it will take detailed negotiations -- talks involving
broad representation of teachers statewide -- to create a final plan
that will stick.

Among the issues to be hammered out:

What happens when a test comes back positive? Will the teacher be
allowed back in the classroom while that result is rechecked, or be
placed on leave immediately? Some teachers justifiably are worried
that they could be "outed" as a suspected substance abuser while tests
are confirmed.

How will the privacy of the testing be assured?

What substances will be covered in the tests, and who will pay for the
tests and any rehabilitation services that may be needed?

The answers to these questions will shape the program before
implementation after June 30, 2008.

If the program is to be sustained, it needs to be evaluated carefully
in the first year to determine its cost-effectiveness and to work out
knotty issues sure to surface in the start-up stages.

Balancing privacy rights and public security requires that everyone
with a stake in the issue has a chance to be heard going forward.