THE PATH TO VOLUNTARY STUDENT DRUG TESTING

WILLIAMSBURG -- Even after a policy vote that followed 13 months of
discussion, the random student drug testing debate rages on.

Tuesday's 11th-hour compromise that made drug testing completely
voluntary and non-punitive drew cheers from the anti-drug testing
movement, who considered it a win-win amendment.

However, some supporters of mandatory testing wonder whether a culture
of teen drug abuse can be dented by a policy that hinges on signed
consent from parent and child. Some felt mousetrapped Tuesday night by
the surprise turn of events, since there was no public debate about
going voluntary.

School Board chair Denise Koch said in an interview Friday that she
had researched voluntary testing and was impressed with its potential
for a larger testing pool of middle and high school students. She also
likes the non-punitive angle as safeguarding confidentiality.

Koch found that in most voluntary programs across the country, only
parents receive drug test results, not school officials. If caught,
students are not removed from extracurriculars, protecting them from
the public infamy of being kicked out after a drug test.

In some families, parents will expect their children to sign
on.

"Somebody was going to be pressuring [the students to take drug tests]
either way," she said. "If it were a mandatory policy, it would be us.
If it's voluntary, it will be the parents."

Some voluntary drug testing programs in California, Pennsylvania and
Alabama have achieved 50%-75% participation rates through marketing
and incentive programs, according to proponents. Schools offer
participating students discounts at local businesses and drug-free
certificates that can be presented to potential employers.

School Board vice chair Mary Ann Maimone, who proposed the switch to
voluntary testing, considers preservation of parental responsibility
the strongest argument for going voluntary.

"A family e-mailed me and said, 'We sat down and talked with our kids
today and decided they will participate in drug testing, and as
parents we want to thank you for making sure that we have that
conversation with them,'" she recalled. "That conversation is going to
happen hopefully hundreds of times throughout our school division.
That conversation would never have happened if the policy was mandatory.

"We want to keep the parents empowered," Maimone continued. "All the
research indicates that kids listen to parents first and other caring
adults second. It's all about partnering with parents not coercing
parents to help create kids who are responsible adults."

Devotees of mandatory testing flinch at the thought of asking for
consent signatures since some families will not step up to the task.

"In my personal studies of voluntary student drug testing, I see one
serious point of concern that continuously burns in my brain," said
parent Beverly Lancaster. "The voluntary drug testing allows the
neediest teenagers in our community to fall through the cracks. I
think our students who receive feeble parental support will not be
helped with [the new policy].

"I fear these very students, in their own young lives, will still pay
the high cost of having too little family support combined with too
many illicit drugs or alcohol."

Dee McHenry, co-chair of the parental task force for mandatory drug
testing, also weighed in.

"Any school board motivated foremost by ensuring student safety would
have approved blended testing of sixth-through twelfth-graders as
part of a complete care package: mandatory drug testing as legally
allowed, and voluntary for all others," she said. "This board's rash
action on Tuesday night telegraphed that they put the idea of student
privacy ahead of safety, thus appeasing vocal opponents to testing,
among whom very few are likely to sign up their kids."

Anti-mandatory parents cheered Maimone's compromise. Curt Gaul, an
outspoken critic of mandatory testing, praised the new policy and said
that he and his teen daughter will consider enrolling.

"What I'd like to see now is those who put forth the initial plan,
those who expressed concerns, and those who haven't yet participated,
all working side-by-side," he said. "Even families that don't sign up,
just the fact that it's become a public issue and will be discussed in
schools every year will help increase dialogue."

WJC parent Kathy Hornsby met briefly with Maimone last weekend to make
a case for voluntary testing.

"I knew that there should be no way with the division in this
community that we should either completely drop the concept or
completely go with the one that was presented," Hornsby said in an
interview.

She likes the non-punitive nature of voluntary, which will not kick
students out of extracurriculars for a positive test.

"Everybody agrees that between the last school bell ringing and when
parents get home, that's when kids get pregnant, get high and get into
trouble," Hornsby said. "It's an at-risk time, and keeping the kids
engaged in something after school is a positive thing."

At Tuesday's board meeting, approval of mandatory testing looked more
probable because of technical revisions by School Board member Joe
Fuentes. On Tuesday night, however, Fuentes immediately seconded
Maimone's amendment to make the program voluntary. In an interview
Thursday, he explained his change of heart.

"There was a tremendous amount of pressure on us from both sides," he
said. "The opposition included very high-level people from the city
and county who were calling us, requesting that we table the issue. By
the end of last week, I could tell there weren't enough yes votes, and
that the board was going to go no. If the policy were tabled, drug
testing would never get implemented."

Fuentes said that he welcomed the amendment Tuesday night as a
compromise that might be palatable to both sides.

"I believe the solution we resolved is actually stronger," Fuentes
added. "If the school does their work properly, and the community is
truly behind it, then this policy has the potential to surpass any
expectations one may have had for the policy that did not pass."

Superintendent Gary Mathews will now edit the language of the policy
to align with the amendment before its final approval by the board.
Koch said she does not anticipate another public hearing since the
policy has technically been approved with an amendment.

The surprising ease with which Maimone's amendment passed provided a
stark contrast to the hours of lengthy debate in the wake of Mathews'
policy proposal. Even Fuentes' minor policy amendments at the Feb. 21
work session were pored over line by line.

Why was there so little discussion?

Fuentes suggested that the amendment may have passed easily in part
because of exhaustion after 13 months of debate.

"I'm just whipped on it, I'm really tired of listening to the
extremes," he said. "There was nothing new that anyone could tell me
that night. There was nothing new that I could learn from more debating.

"Several [colleagues]," he added, "said they weren't leaving the room
that night until we settled it."