MARSHFIELD SCHOOL HEAD WANTS DRUG TESTS TO GO ON

Marshfield - The last time a drug-sniffing dog was let loose in the
halls of Marshfield High School, very few lockers piqued the canine's
interest. Principal Jan Hibbs isn't sure whether the district's new
random drug-testing program gets the credit for that, but she'd like
to think so.

A year ago, the Marshfield School Board voted 4-3 to implement the
program, which drew the ire of some parents and the praise of others.

The policy requires junior high and high school students who
participate in extra-or co-curricular activities to submit to random
drug tests.

Superintendent Mike Wutke told board members Monday he'd like to see
the program return for 2004-05 school year.

"I was pleasantly surprised," Wutke said. "There were very few
problems aside from a little stage fright for some students who had to
drink a glass of water."

Of the 850 secondary students in the district, about 700 entered the
testing pool with the permission of their parents, Hibbs said.

But some parents - Ron Sparks among them - fundamentally opposed the
program.

Sparks refused to sign a release form allowing his teenage daughter to
be tested last year, prompting school officials to bar her from
participating in band and a model U.N. Council.

Sparks withdrew his daughter from Marshfield Junior High last fall
after she suffered an eye injury from a pencil, which he said was
related to violence.

"We don't have a drug problem," he said. "We have a violence problem
in this school district."

More than 180 students and 13 staff members were randomly tested last
year by Employee Screening Services, the Springfield company
contracting with the school district.

The total cost of the testing was $3,414, paid for with Title IV funds
- - federal grants earmarked for drug-free school initiatives.

Twice a month, 10 students and five alternates are randomly selected
for drug testing, Hibbs said.

Each student has an identification number to protect their privacy,
she added.

Test results immediately indicate whether drugs were detected, and a
"pending positive" is sent to a lab for confirmation, Wutke said.

Following each random test, Hibbs said she contacted parents to inform
them about the test and the initial results.

"People were concerned about false positives, and I can say there were
no false positives," he said.

At the next school board meeting, Wutke said he'll recommend minor
changes in the policy language, specifically a clause clarifying the
anonymity of students selected for the random tests.

Otherwise, Wutke considers the drug testing a success after realizing
that drug usage seemed to be on an upswing.

"We felt it was getting worse," he said. "We felt there was more of a
culture of acceptance. ... The main reason we're doing this is to give
the kids an out, a reason to say 'no.'"

If the district does indeed continue to drug-test students, Sparks
said the program should be expanded to include tobacco products and
steroids.

Wutke said the district is exploring those possibilities, but he
doesn't believe steroid abuse is a widespread problem.

And testing for tobacco use isn't advanced enough to delineate between
first- and second-hand smoke, he noted.