COST THWARTS DRUG TEST PLAN

Some Not Sure Random Testing Is Proven To Deter Students

Concerns from some School Board members about how to fund random drug
tests have derailed the proposal being suggested for students at
Carmel High School.

The tests, which would have been randomly administered to students
who were in extracurricular activities, co-curricular activities
(such as marching band) or drove to school, were estimated to cost as
much as $30,000 to $35,000. Tests could have started in 2006-07. The
board stopped the plan Monday night.

Those figures are based on research that suggests random tests are
effective only if at least 30 percent -- in this case, more than
1,000 students -- are tested.

That cost, said Superintendent Barbara Underwood, ultimately would
come from the district's general fund -- a pot of money that is
largely devoted to paying for the salaries and benefits of a majority
of employees.

What's more, additional costs could become the norm, when considering
that students' licenses would need to be registered and tracked --
most likely by a staff member -- in order to make teen drivers
subject to testing.

All that without any concrete evidence that random drug testing is an
effective deterrent to use.

"As our committee looked at research, for every positive article that
you could find from someone who says this is a deterrent, you can
find one that says this is not," said Steve Dillon, district director
of student services.

Even so, Dillon said, the practice may still be worthwhile.

"Will random drug testing stop all students from participating in
illegal drugs? No, it won't," he said. "But our committee does
believe that it will be a significant deterrent for some students."

That was the rationale Bruce Breeden and Capi Scheidler used when
voting in favor of the proposal, which was defeated 3-2.

"What do we do if we don't do this?" Breeden said.

"Twenty-seven thousand bucks, $30,000 -- if that helps one child or a
group of four kids together make a decision not to use, then it's
worth every darn cent."

But cost concerns ultimately were enough worry for others, even those
in favor of the plan, to turn it down.

"I just question . . . is this an effective use of money?" Jeff Carter asked.

"We have a money issue, and that for me is primary," said board
member Mark Hartman. "(Money) is the only reason that I won't support this."

Board member Joe Miller, who also voted against the proposal, has
questioned the ethics and legality of the practice.