DRUG TESTS POSSIBLE HERE, BUT VOUCHERS ARE UNLIKELY

WORCESTER-- While some school districts may move quickly to take advantage
of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that drug testing of students
in athletic and other extracurricular activities is constitutional, it may
take years, if ever, for the court's approval of a Cleveland school voucher
program to change the status quo in Massachusetts, school officials and
others said yesterday.

The Supreme Court held as constitutional an Oklahoma school district's
policy to conduct random drug testing on students participating in
competitive after-school activities and a Cleveland school district's
school-voucher program that allows parents to use public money to pay their
children's religious and private school tuition.

According to the court, school voucher programs are valid as long as
parents can choose among a range of secular and religious schools.

About 4,000 of the Cleveland district's 57,000 students participate in the
voucher program. But 42 of the 51 schools at which the vouchers are being
used are religious schools.

The drug test ruling is a follow-up to a 1995 case in which the court
allowed random urine tests for student athletes. In that case, the court
found that the school had a pervasive drug problem and that athletes were
among the users.

The new ruling expands the random tests to include students participating
in extracurricular activities such as chess clubs and debate teams and
would affect high school and middle school pupils.

Worcester School Committee member Brian A. O'Connell said he will ask his
colleagues on the board to permit the school system to require students'
consent to random drug testing and that the policy "be as far-reaching and
inclusive as permissible under the Supreme Court ruling."

"That would be an additional assist, if the school system believes the use
of drugs is taking place, but is unable to find out by regular means," Mr.
O'Connell said.

"By definition, most drug use is surreptitious, and it is important that a
school has every reasonable effort available to detect students who use
drugs, and it is important that students know schools have the right to do
such testing."

But School Committee member Ogretta V. McNeil questioned the need for such
a far-reaching drug policy.

"I can understand the people's concern, but I think we have no evidence
that (testing students) needs to be done here," she said.

"I hope we would have a more responsible model for kids," she said. "We
cannot always assume that kids are doing the wrong thing. Our safety
department has done a wonderful job of educating staff to identify kids who
are at risk."

Ronal C. Madnick, executive director of the Worcester County Chapter of the
American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said it would be a
"terrible mistake" for the school system to implement such a policy.

"The best way to keep kids off drugs and out of trouble is to get them
involved in extracurricular activities," he said.

"Such a policy might prevent kids from taking part in those activities, not
because they are doing anything wrong, but because they want to avoid the
embarrassment of peeing into a cup."

Meanwhile, groups such as the American Legislative Council are hailing the
ruling on school vouchers as "a day of celebration for parents who only
want the best education for their student."

But Glen Koocher, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of
School Committees, said that asking "the people of America to pay for
religious education is a recipe for divisiveness on a scale this country
has never seen.

"In a single ill-advised ruling, the Supreme Court has destroyed more than
two centuries of constitutional protection that has wisely separated church
and state," he said.

Marilyn Segal, director of the Boston-based Citizens for Public Schools,
said the Massachusetts constitution prohibits the use of public dollars
being used as tuition for religious and private schools.

Changing the Massachusetts constitution would require an affirmative vote
of 25 percent of the state's legislative body at two consecutive
constitutional conventions, followed by approval of the amendment by
referendum vote, she said.

Former state Senate President William M. Bulger, who had pressed throughout
his tenure for such an amendment, managed to get the bill through two
consecutive constitutional conventions, in 1982 and 1986, but it was
overwhelmingly defeated in the subsequent referendum vote, she said.

Any future attempts to amend the constitution to allow school vouchers
would go down to defeat, she said.

"I do not believe such an amendment would pass in Massachusetts," she said.

"There is only one duty in the Massachusetts Constitution and that is the
duty to provide children with a public education. We have a long history of
taking public education seriously."