LAKE CENTRAL MOM HAS PROBLEMS WITH SCHOOL'S ATTEMPT AT DRUG POLICY

SCHERERVILLE -- Against her will, Deborah Gorman cooperated.

Gorman, the mother of a Lake Central High School senior, signed a form
toward the end of the summer conveying her willingness to cooperate in a
program that would allow the school to randomly test her son, a basketball
player, for drugs.

"I had to sign a paper (saying) that I wanted to be part of this program,"
Gorman said. "Why should (my son) be forced to take the bus because I don't
sign a paper? He could not participate in sports. He could not drive to
school. He could not be in any clubs, unless I signed this piece of paper,
which I didn't want to do. I felt like they were strong-arming me."

Gorman's concerns were validated in August when the Indiana Court of
Appeals ruled that random drug testing being conducted at a Howard County
school was unconstitutional, citing a violation of the unreasonable search
and seizure protections in the state's constitution.

Pending an appeal to the state Supreme Court, schools around the state have
been encouraged by the state's school board association to put their random
testing programs on hold.

"We never started (the program)," said Janet Emerick, superintendent of the
Lake Central school district. "We were going to start Oct. 1, but because
of the ruling, that's kind of on hold."

Emerick said she was following the court case and would work with school
officials to tailor a policy to fit the final ruling.

"Would we still like to do it?" Emerick asked. "Yes."

Emerick indicated the intention of the policy is not to cast a "Big
Brother-is-watching" mentality throughout the school system; rather, it is
meant to provide incentive for students to make the right decisions.

"In looking at this whole policy, you're really doing it for prevention,"
Emerick said. "The whole idea is obviously to provide for the health and
safety for our kids. It helps kids undermine the peer pressure because they
can say, 'I'm afraid I'll be tested.' It kind of gives them another excuse."

Gorman, however, continues to believe instituting random drug testing is a
step in the wrong direction.

"I've pushed (my son) to be in sports because I don't want him to be with
the wrong people," Gorman said. "I want him in sports so he's out of
trouble. Why would you want to pick the kids who are involved at school to
do drug testing?"

Emerick said the answer to Gorman's question is simple: It is how the
courts have interpreted the law thus far.

"When we were writing the policy, there had been rulings that allowed for
testing of (students involved in) extracurriculars and student drivers, so
that was the logic behind it," Emerick said. "We think all kids should be
in a random group to be tested, but basically those are the groups that we
were able to test."

Emerick is not alone in thinking random testing is a good idea. The
Duneland school district in Porter County had started a program at
Chesterton High School, which has also been discontinued because of the
court decision. A number of other schools in the area have also indicated a
desire to have similar program.

In Illinois, students continue to be subjected to random testing.

"There continues to be a fair amount of drug testing that goes on,
especially in terms of people involved in athletics and extracurricular
activities," said Ed Yohnka, director of communications for the American
Civil Liberties Union's Illinois chapter.

Yohnka said that although the chapter would like to see the law changed, he
was not hopeful.

"It's not something we've taken a look at yet," he said. "Maybe in light of
(the reversal in Indiana) there might be some opportunities to make some
changes here, but at present I would not say that I'm optimistic."

Citing a district court decision that characterized athletic participation
as a right and not a privilege, John Schwaller, student assistance
coordinator for Homewood-Flossmoor school district, said his schools had
been randomly testing athletes for the past nine years.

"We don't want to punish kids by taking them out of the sport," Schwaller
said. "What we want to do is help them."

Schwaller said if the student agrees to get help, the only people who will
know about a failed test are the student, his or her parents, Schwaller and
the school's athletic director.

"For some kids it's a real deterrent, in the sense that it gives kids an
out," Schwaller said. "And for some of the kids who get caught, it actually
is a wake-up call, that we're not playing games."

However, Jerry Watkins, director of secondary curriculum and instruction
for the Hammond school district, said he has not felt a need to provide the
extra incentive that Emerick and Schwaller referred to.

Watkins said he had never felt spurred by the community to institute a
policy, and drug tests have always been handled on a probable cause basis.

"The other thing is, we've been very careful about the fact that those
kinds of issues can be construed as violating an individual's civil
rights," Watkins said. "There's never been a definitive ruling supporting
(random drug testing), and in light of the recent court decision, I think
we probably have taken the safest route, to allow the appropriate people
who are in charge of those various programs to make those decisions if they
see any probable cause or reasonable suspicion."

Emerick said the school will continue to embrace as many policies aimed at
prevention as are possible.

"It's our obligation as a school," Emerick said. "Our obligation is the
safety of our kids. I think you have to look at the intent. The intent is
prevention, not to get kids. We don't want any kids to use drugs."