SHILOH BOARD DEFENDS DRUG TESTING POLICY

Growing concern within the Shiloh School District about the district's drug
testing policy prompted a discussion among board members Monday night.

No critics of the policy attended the meeting and board members expressed
little desire to change or eliminate the policy. Shiloh requires that every
student participating in junior high and high school extracurricular
activities or students who drive to school be tested for drug use.

District superintendent Jim Acklin explained that recent criticism focused
on the district's tobacco stance. He said that some community members claim
it is unfair to punish 18-year-old students who test positive for tobacco,
which is a legal product for students of that age.

Acklin expressed support for the basic premise of student drug testing.

"I like it from the standpoint that it gives young people an opportunity to
say, 'no,'" stated Acklin.

He acknowledged a more ambivalence for 18-year-old students who can legally
use tobacco and perhaps only drive to school, but he added it is his
responsibility to administer the policy as written. He has no tolerance for
athletes of any age using tobacco.

"As a former coach, I have strong feelings about what athletes put in or
shouldn't put in their bodies," said Acklin. "A basketball player should
not be smoking."

Board member Kim Brown supported continued sanctions against 18-year-old
students who use tobacco. He said it is proper to deny them participation
in school events such as the prom or the senior trip because they might
smoke during such occasions.

He was supported by board member Debby Young. She argued age is irrelevant
because each student participating in extracurricular activities or who
drives to school signs an agreement acknowledging they are subject to drug
testing.

"If they sign the agreement, they need to honor it," said Young. "They have
to decide if they want to smoke or participate in school activities."

Board president Tom Patchett agreed that athletes should be barred from
tobacco use but he expressed uncertainty about the district's punitive
actions against 18-year-olds who only drive to school and test positive for
tobacco.

"I don't class it with other drugs that are more dangerous, more quickly,"
said Patchett.

Young disagreed that other drugs are more dangerous than tobacco. She said
as a nurse she cares for far more people on ventilators after a lifetime of
tobacco use than she does for people who abused other substances.

"Tobacco is a drug like anything else," insisted Young.

Board member Paul Freebairn complained that the drug testing program is not
truly random as it is supposed to be.

"In a small school like this, it is public knowledge who's using, but they
never get called," stated Freebairn.

School principal Deb Derby said the system is entirely random. She
explained that students in the testing pool receive a new number every
year. She submits the numbers to the lab along with information regarding
how many students are to be called for each test, how many tests are to be
conducted and when school is in session.

Derby said the testing lab determines when the tests will be conducted and
the lab computer randomly generates the numbers that determine which
students will be tested. District administrators do not know in advance
when the lab has a test scheduled or which students will be called.

Acklin used himself as an example of how random testing works. He has a
commercial drivers license to drive school buses. He said during one period
he was tested three months in a row but his name has not been called for
almost two years.

"When your name goes back into the pool, it's the same odds each time,"said
Acklin.

The superintendent suggested the possibility of seeking a Drug Free School
grant to fund a one-time test of everybody in the testing pool. It was
estimated a one-time test of everybody would cost $2,000, which is almost
equal to the $2,800 the district spends for yearly random tests.

Freebairn liked that idea and said it would go a long way toward dispelling
the belief that the tests are arranged to get the maximum negative results.

Brown doubted the tests target only students likely to yield a negative. He
told board members that he observed a recent testing during which one
student took an unusually long time in the toilet and the sample the
student supplied looked more like apple juice than urine. Nor did the
sample have the correct temperature.

That sample, said Brown, was rejected by school nurse Georgia Horsley.

Acklin was confident the testing procedure catches users as well as
nonusers. He received a report from one student that a second student
called for testing was asking others being tested that day to sneak a cup
into the toilet to leave an extra sample that the second student could
submit as his own.

Board member Judy Tharp questioned if widespread opposition to drug testing
exists among the students. She claimed students who are clean and don't
have anything hide do not object to the tests, whereas the complaints are
coming from students engaged in unacceptable activity.

A criticism that testing should include the faculty was addressed by board
member Samantha Hutchinson. She said drug testing the faculty is not
possible because of contractual arrangements.

Tharp concurred with Hutchinson's assessment.

"I asked the school attorney about negotiating that several years ago, and
he said, 'Don't go there,'" said Tharp.

None of the board members advocated changing the policy because there is
the perception that it is an effective tool in discouraging student drug use.

Patchett said the testing history shows that during the first year of the
program the district had 19 percent positive tests but within two years the
positive results made a significant drop.

"That first year, you had kids showing up under the influence of alcohol,"
said Acklin. "That isn't happening anymore."