AND HOME TESTING?

Advocates of Superintendent Gary Mathews' proposal claim that drug
testing will be a deterrent to drug and alcohol use, give students an
excuse to say no, and show them that adults care.

I'm wondering why I am unable to find one local advocate who will
admit to providing his or her own teens the same "excuse to say no" by
drug testing them at home.

Not one advocate has said to me, "Yes, I test my kids at home because
this shows them I care." If it's good policy for everyone else's
children at our high schools, why isn't it good policy for the
advocates' own children at home?

In fact, several folks declined to answer the question, citing privacy
issues. Ironically, many of the concerns about the drug testing policy
revolve around maintaining the privacy of students. Or is privacy only
important for certain families?

I asked a reverend who is promoting the policy whether he offered drug
testing to the teens in his church's youth group. He declined to
discuss it, instead decrying the demise and decay of the moral fiber
of the American family as the reason this needs to be implemented in
our public schools. Apparently this doesn't apply to the families in
his church.

Frankly, I don't know what to make of this glaring disconnect. These
are all well-meaning people who are insistent that mandatory drug
testing will be good for our public school teens, yet who do not
practice what they preach at home. Or at church.

KATHY HORNSBY

James City County