SCHOOLS TARGETED BY DRUG TESTERS

Armed With A High Court Ruling, Firms See A Growing Need.

Decisions about how school districts deal with drugs on campus soon could
be influenced more by marketing and less by need.

A wave of promotions by drug-testing companies has begun in response to a
Supreme Court decision in June that expanded the rights of schools to test
students for drugs.

The companies hope to gain the business of school districts, which,
according to the 5-4 decision, now have the right to perform urine tests on
students in sports, competitive after-school activities -like band or choir
- -and those who drive to school.

"I've been calling district superintendents ever since the ruling came
out," said Jeffrey Ellins, president of Datco Services Corp., a
drug-testing company in Grass Valley.

One district Ellins has contacted is the Roseville Joint Union High School
District, which is considering using his testing service.

District officials also are talking about random campus visits by
drug-sniffing dogs -- all part of a larger discussion of revamping the
district's drug policies.

The discussion of new tactics comes despite assertions from the district
that there has been no marked increase in student drug use.

"At the end of last year, we had some increased expulsions because of drug
sales, but this year schools and police say there's been no specific
incidents," said Larry Brubaker, director of student affairs for the
district. "This just seemed like the most contemporary issue that we
haven't specifically addressed."

Ellins, whose company tests athletes in the Nevada Joint Union High School
District for drugs, said he also is in discussions with school districts in
Yuba and Humboldt counties.

"A lot of people are starting the process, just like the Roseville high
school district is," he said.

Ellins said high schools in Colusa, Corning, Shasta, Dixon, Willows and
Oroville have begun drug testing with a different company.

The discussion in the Roseville district coincides with promotional efforts
by a local franchise of Interquest Canine Detection, a national corporation
that has contracts with 1,300 school districts across the country, 300 of
which are in California, mostly in the southern part of the state, said
Laura Pinnick, owner of the Auburn franchise.

Since opening her business in April, Pinnick said, "The main goal (has
been) starting to call on the big school districts in the area because it
takes forever for them approve this kind of thing."

Pinnick said she currently provides visits by her yellow Labrador
retriever, Ringo, to Capital Christian School and Loretto High School in
Sacramento, and to continuation schools in Nevada County. She said she is
in early talks with superintendents in the Roseville high school district
and the Folsom Cordova and Rocklin unified school districts, as well as
with a handful of other private schools in Sacramento.

Ringo is trained to detect illegal drugs, commonly abused prescription
drugs, alcohol and gunpowder-based articles like guns, ammunition and
firecrackers, Pinnick said.

In a report to the Roseville high school board, Brubaker estimated that it
would cost $16,000 to $18,000 a year for the dog visits and as much as
$5,000 a month for the drug tests.

Just because services like canine detection and drug testing are available
and the practices are legal does not mean they are appropriate in schools,
said Graham Boyd, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's drug
litigation project.

"This is not like buying pencils or notebooks," Boyd said from his New
Haven, Conn. office. "It is about taking care of your students. And it is a
serious privacy invasion for the students to give their urine."

Boyd represented Lindsay Earls, the plaintiff in this summer's Supreme
Court case. Earls, now at Dartmouth College, was a high school student in
Oklahoma who sued her school district for requiring her to take a urine
test to participate in the school choir. Earls' test was negative, but she
said the policy was an embarrassment and an unnecessary invasion of privacy.

Although testing student athletes for drug use has been legal since 1995,
just 5 percent of schools have implemented the practice, said Boyd.

Shortly after the decision this summer, Boyd said, the drug testing
industry met and encouraged businesses to market themselves to school
districts.

He said he knew of a drug-testing company in Florida that was offering a
free-trial deal to school districts.

"Where you find the most drug testing is usually in communities where
there's the least drug use," Boyd said. "The decision to test is more about
politics and less about helping kids."

In Roseville, some parents, students and school board members are
questioning the need for urine testing and drug-sniffing dogs.

"Our schools don't have a (drug) problem any worse than other schools,"
said Jim Joiner, a school board member. "That doesn't make things any
better. If we can do things to help reduce the drug problem, we would like
to do those things."

He said he was opposed to testing students for drugs but that the board,
and the larger community, would have to discuss the option.

"I don't want to institutionalize suspicion," he said. "You teach kids
responsibility by allowing them to be responsible."

Karen Wehr, parent of an Oakmont student and president of the football
boosters club, said the ideas the district have introduced are too extreme.
She said that teens who might be using drugs should be able to rely on
their school community for support.

"If the coach is doing his job and checking on the kids and creating a real
connection with them, he can be talking to the kids and helping them that
way," Wehr said.

"I know these kids and, for some of them, the only good thing they have in
their life is being on the football team," she said.

That is exactly why drug testing works as an excellent deterrent for
student athletes, said Ellins of the Datco drug testing company.

"Kids want to do sports, it gives them a great opportunity to say 'no' to
drugs," he said.

"Now, what they do on the off-season, I'm not even going to venture a
guess. But during the season, they have a pact to stay off the funny
stuff," Ellins said.

Students interviewed at Oakmont High School generally were opposed to
ramping up the district's drug policy.

"They should just worry about teaching us and not about controlling us --
we have parents for that," said Michelle McKee, 16.

"I could see it if there were a lot of drugs on campus, but it's not really
a big problem here," said Susie Samayoa, 17. "The kids who deal drugs, they
don't really come to school -- they're on home study or something. They're
not around."

On the Roseville High School campus, Marlene Tamayo, 17, a student
representative to the district board of trustees, said drug tests and
canine sweeps were ideas worth considering.

"You'd be uncomfortable but maybe it could possibly pressure those involved
with drugs to get help for themselves," she said.

On the other hand, Tamayo said, random visits by dogs might just encourage
those students to skip school.

"If students stray away from our school, where would that lead them? To
another school? To drop out altogether? Those are things we need to
consider," she said.

In reconsidering its policies, the Roseville high school district has
solicited the opinions of parents, teachers and students at its campuses.
Representatives of Datco Services Corp. and Interquest Canine Detection
Services likely will be making presentations to school committees in the
coming months.

For his part, the ACLU's Boyd encouraged community members to consult his
organization's Web site, www.aclu.org, where experts from the National
Education Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry explain their stance on drug
testing in schools, and ACLU lawyers offer guides to the legal parameters
of the practice.