STUDENTS AND DRUG TESTING

Shouldn't administrators have a say?

WHEN SHOULD a school administrator insist that a student be tested for
drugs? Does the state really insist on testing every time, regardless of
the circumstances?

That was at the heart of a ruling last week that involved a Wayne vice
principal who failed to require a urine sample from a student who died two
weeks later of an unrelated heroin overdose. The answer, regrettably, would
appear to be an unequivocal yes.

An administrative law judge upheld a demotion and a four-month, unpaid
suspension of the vice principal, but stopped short of terminating the
administrator because of his otherwise unblemished record.

While the vice principal's penalty seems harsh, the state's statute on the
drug testing of students now seems crystal clear. If administrators want to
avoid getting second-guessed -- and severely punished -- they should always
err on the side of caution and insist on drug testing every time.

That may be the judge's interpretation, but shouldn't common sense be
allowed to play a role here?

Here's the situation. In January 1999, a phys-ed teacher told Wayne Hills
High School Vice Principal Joseph Graceffo that an 11th-grader, Nicholas
Lucatorto, smelled of marijuana and that the teen should take a urine test.
Mr. Graceffo took the teen to two school nurses, who both said that the
boy's eyes were not dilated and that they could smell only nicotine. Mr.
Graceffo then called the teen's mother. He told her of the incident,
learned that the boy was under medication for the flu, and decided not to
require a urine test.

Two weeks later, the Lucatorto youth died of a heroin overdose, and some
educators second-guessed the vice principal's decision not to make the boy
take a urine test. They said that under state statute and the district's
zero-tolerance policy toward illegal drugs in schools, an administrator has
no leeway.

Last week Administrative Law Judge Mumtaz Bari-Brown concurred. The ruling
now goes to state Education Commissioner David Hespe, who has 45 days to
accept, reject, or modify it.

In fairness to Mr. Graceffo, the commissioner should suspend the penalties
and urge the Legislature to reconsider this law. An administrator should be
allowed to use discretion regarding drug testing, as long as he or she
thoroughly looks into the matter.

Under the current interpretation of Statute 18A:40A-12 and the
administrative code written to clarify it, an administrator apparently has
no choice but to give a drug test. But consider whether this is really such
a good idea under the following two hypothetical circumstances:

A substitute teacher reports that he suspects drug use because a student
fell asleep in class twice one day. The principal knows the student was
awake all night caring for a sick relative.

Do you think a drug test should be required? The state apparently does.

A school custodian says he keeps smelling marijuana in the lavatories, and
he thinks every student in the entire school should take a urine test.

Do you think every student should be tested? Apparently the state does.

The most telling testimony came from the mother of the Wayne boy who
overdosed on heroin. She said that the vice principal "did everything he
could that day [when the teacher suspected her son of marijuana use]. I
didn't feel that Nick should have been tested that day."

Neither did Mr. Graceffo, and he was punished as a result.

School administrators are hired in large part for their judgment. They
should be allowed to use it, without black-and-white dictates from the
state in some mighty gray areas.