TIME TO SAY NO

W-JCC Should Act Now To Block Student Drug Testing

The Williamsburg-James City County School Board put off until March 7
a vote on a proposal to subject most of the students at Jamestown and
Lafayette high schools to random drug tests.

That gives parents and other concerned adults plenty of time to
contact board members and urge them to vote against it. And there is
abundant reason for thoughtful people in the city and county, whether
they have children in the schools or not, to be concerned about the
community's young people being subjected to the kind of testing
program being proposed.

Yes, drugs and alcohol are problems in the Williamsburg area, as they
are everywhere.

But the solution does not lie in violating students' and families'
reasonable expectations of privacy and confidentiality. It will not
come from running roughshod over children's right to be protected
from search and seizure - of a type that compels them to give school
staff access to personal body fluids - in the absence of any reason
to suspect they have committed a crime.

And it does not lie in intruding into parents' right to make
decisions for their children - decisions as significant and intimate
as how they will deal with substance abuse or the issues that can go with it.

Plenty Of Problems

It is especially distressing that school Superintendent Gary Mathews
is proposing, and the board is considering, a program so deeply
flawed when there isn't any reason to believe it will do anything to
reduce or deter drug or alcohol use. That's right: There is no
demonstrable evidence that random drug testing is effective at doing
anything other than teaching students to tolerate authorities'
inroads on their rights.

Here are some of the reasons the proposal should be rejected:

The program proposed by Mathews goes far beyond anything found in any
other Virginia school district, far beyond the guidelines of the
state Board of Education and far beyond the limits established by the
U.S. Supreme Court. It targets not just athletes and students in
competitive extracurricular activities -groups for whom the Supreme
Court has OK'd testing - but students in all extracurricular
activities. They will be subjected to testing if they join the
Science Club or work backstage on a play or are inducted into the
National Honor Society. And, they will be subjected even if they
drive to and park a car at school. That takes in about two-thirds of
the students. It seems ludicrous to subject 2,000 students to testing
based on this sliver of data: 29 students were disciplined first
semester of this year for violations of the school system's drug and
alcohol policies.

The testing won't get at the biggest problem: alcohol. More students
drink than get involved with illegal drugs. Alcohol causes more
carnage in their lives, from bad decisions about sex to bad decisions
behind the wheel. But the tests will pick up very little alcohol,
since it's metabolized quickly.

It is not the responsibility of the school system to pinpoint which
students drink and discipline them. That's a job for families and law
enforcement.

The school system doesn't plan to test for steroids, a drug of choice
among too many young athletes. That's the one form of testing that
might make sense, since it would be directly related to a
school-sponsored, extracurricular activity that has a known
correlation to a form of drug abuse: the use of steroids by athletes.

The policy intrudes into parents' rights to make decisions for their
children about how to handle drug or alcohol issues. The policy
specifies that for a first offense a student must participate in a
minimum of five "prevention/education sessions" with the school
student-assistance counselor. This is troublesome on several counts.
First is the dubious assumption by the schools that it's their job to
carry out the intervention with a child who uses drugs and alcohol
outside of school. Second, the equally dubious assumption that
"education" will "fix" the problem. Third, many parents would be
chilled by the prospect of the personal and familial information that
is the grist of counseling becoming known to a school staff member
and recorded in a file kept on school property.

If a student fails a second test, the prescribed outcome is "a
comprehensive substance abuse assessment and education" program at
Bacon Street, a local agency; if parents want something else, they
must pay for it, but they must choose "a similar program" and get
their choice approved. That puts schools in the position of vetting
parents' decisions about therapeutic choices for their children, a
position that oversteps the schools' expertise and mission. There is
considerable potential for damage to children's - and families' -
reputations. When a kid is subjected to a drug test then suddenly
benched for two weeks or missing from the band or stops driving to
school - and is seen going to see the designated counselor - the
school grapevine will telegraph the news. Confidentiality is a
delusion when the consequence for a first offense is a suspension of
at least two weeks from after-school activities or parking.

And therein lies another problem: How to justify punishing a student
at school for behavior off campus? Particularly behavior that may
have no impact on school performance.

Then there's the cost: $38,000, from a federal grant that might be
used for more effective drug prevention activities. The cost will
soar when the school system has to defend itself against the legal
challenges this policy would surely invite. And the additional
responsibilities heaped on school staff will take away from other
jobs. All in all, this is a waste that cannot be justified.

There is plenty of opportunity for parents, students and citizens to
voice their opinions to School Board members. They should - there's a
lot at stake.