SCHOOLS UNEASY ON RANDOM DRUG TESTS

Area Students, Parents Cite Privacy Concerns After High Court Ruling;
Others Point To Costs

The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that public schools can perform random
drug tests on students involved in extracurricular activities may have
little effect in the Washington region, where administrators, parents and
students have resisted the practice on grounds of privacy, practicality
and, quite simply, cost.

Already allowed to test athletes, most local school districts have shied
away from such programs and said they would have to evaluate what benefits,
if any, they would realize from testing members of the band, glee club or
student newspaper staff.

"If I'm in a school as a principal where we have a drug problem, and we're
fighting the drug problem, and we're fighting to keep the person who's
possessing drugs from entering school grounds . . . yes, I would do it,"
said Paul L. Vance, superintendent of D.C. public schools. "But I would not
do it just because I had the right to do it. There would have to be cause
for suspicion."

Any changes would likely meet protests from parents and students.

"It seems like a real step toward big-brotherism with my children, and
that's something I'm not at all comfortable with," said Heather Tepe, a
Columbia parent with three children in public school.

Tepe also argued that officials would be going after the wrong kids.
"Children who are busy with activities and involved in the community are
less likely to be using drugs," she said. "You don't have many stoners who
are joining the lacrosse or 'It's Academic' teams."

Students cited the humiliation that might result from being singled out for
random urine tests, as well as the lack of trust such testing could signal.

"Some people are going to be thinking, 'Why was I picked for this and he
wasn't?' " said Karie Morrison, a senior who plays softball at Park View
High School in Sterling.

For many administrators, though, the matter boils down to cost.

Ned Sparks, executive director of the Maryland Public Secondary Schools
Athletic Association, said that the group found in 1995 that it would cost
about $8 million annually to test its 75,000 athletes at its 171 high
schools. There are now 180 public high schools in Maryland.

"We looked at it, investigated it, studied it, but all the pitfalls made it
something that wasn't worth doing," Sparks said.

Don Disney, athletic coordinator for Howard County schools, reached a
similar conclusion. "The cost of doing these random tests compared to what
your likely outcome would be just didn't measure up."

In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that public middle and high schools may
require drug tests from students participating in interscholastic
athletics. Yesterday's decision extends it to other extracurricular activities.

In Prince George's County, Northwestern High School Principal William
Ritter has one of the most aggressive approaches to drug testing. If he
suspects a student is under the influence of alcohol, he can order a
breathalyzer test but only if the student or a parent consents. Yesterday's
ruling, however, could go too far, he said. "Part of me thinks this is a
good thing, and part of me is concerned about issues of confidentiality,"
Ritter said. "It would have to be handled very carefully."

Any district in Maryland eager to start giving drug tests to saxophone
players could run afoul of state law, which does not allow random student
searches, said Edmund O'Meally, a lawyer who specializes in education law.

Several students argued that the schools had no right to test them without
just cause. "Since we're going into adulthood, we should be treated like
adults," said Justin Arnett, 15, a student at C.H. Flowers High School in
Prince George's County. His principal sees it another way: "My basic
philosophy is this: A school must be representative of what society is, and
many of our students will go on to jobs that will require testing," Helena
Nobles-Jones said.