SCHOOLS ACROSS U.S. AWAIT RULING ON DRUG TESTS

In tiny Modoc, Calif., 150 people turned out this month to discuss the
school district's proposal to begin random drug testing of all high school
students.

"Every other school in our athletic league tests their athletes," said Dr.
Kevin Jolly, the superintendent in Modoc, which has yet to decide on the
proposal, "but we thought it would be fairer to test everyone, evenly,
randomly choosing 10 students a month.

"But of the 150 people who showed up for the meeting, most were against
it," Dr. Jolly said. "At the meeting a month ago, we had 20 people, and
they were mostly for it."

In many parts of the country, the issue of school drug-testing has been
simmering ever since the Supreme Court's 1995 decision in Vernonia School
District v. Acton upheld the testing of student athletes, who are
considered leaders of a school's drug culture.

But as Dr. Jolly has discovered, there remains great uncertainty about
which other students, if any, a school can test. He, like school officials
throughout the country, is hoping that the confusion will be resolved by a
case argued before the Supreme Court yesterday, a challenge to an Oklahoma
school's policy of conducting random drug tests on students who participate
in extracurricular activities.

"Everyone's been confused these recent years, because no one's sure which
part of the court's ruling was the important one," Dr. Jolly said. "Was it
that they were athletes, or that they were leaders of a drug culture? I got
a 10- page opinion from our lawyer about the situation. At this point, I
think we would be well- advised to wait for the new decision."

Over the last three years, about 5 percent of schools nationwide have
performed drug tests on student athletes, and about 2 percent have been
testing students involved in other extracurricular activities, according to
the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, which does
yearly surveys of school principals.

But those numbers might be higher if the court upholds the Oklahoma
school's policy.

"There are many school districts that would adopt policies if the Supreme
Court upholds testing," said Julie Underwood, general counsel of the
National School Boards Association, which backs schools' rights to test
students involved in extracurricular activities. "It seems to be a regional
thing, with a lot of interest in places like Indiana, Ohio, Oklahoma and
Texas. Telling kids to just say no to drugs doesn't work. So as part of
their arsenal to deter drug use, many schools want the right to make
students who participate in extracurricular activities submit to random
drug tests."

Lindsay Earls, the student at the center of the current case, said she
could not see any reason for her school in Tecumseh, Okla., to test
students like her, who were not on an athletic team and not part of any
drug culture. Ms. Earls, now a freshman at Dartmouth, said she was
uncomfortable -- and felt that her privacy was being invaded -- when she
was called out of choir in 1999 to have her urine tested for drugs.

"It was really tense, with each girl in a stall, and a teacher we all knew
outside listening for the sound of urination," Ms. Earls said. "The kids I
hung out with didn't use drugs. I know the Supreme Court, in the Vernonia
case, talked about how athletes have a risk of physical harm. But we're not
going to hurt ourselves in choir."

Just two weeks ago, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that testing was
acceptable not just for athletes suspected of drug use but for any students
who drive to school or participate in certain extracurricular activities.

Much of the interest in drug testing, which costs $10 to $15 a student,
seems to come from small districts that can reach a significant proportion
of the student body each year by testing only 10 to 20 students a month.

But many districts are hesitant to begin testing until the Supreme Court
ruling. In Virginia, the Mathews County school board developed a voluntary
drug-testing program in January but last month decided to delay formal
consideration of the policy until the Earls case was decided. In Conway,
Ark., last year, the school board passed a policy similar to Tecumseh's,
but the superintendent decided to wait for the Earls ruling before
implementing it.

Hunterdon Central Regional High School in Flemington, N.J., began testing
about 100 student athletes a year in 1996 -- and in February 2000 added to
the testing pool those students who participated in extracurricular
activities or parked on campus.

"We were hearing from a lot of people who thought it was wrong to single
out the athletes," said Lisa Brady, the principal. "We also felt that
students in extracurriculars represent the school, that they are often
taken on overnight trips, and that as a matter of safety, the teachers who
take them, and the other students on the trip, should have a right to know
that the people with them are drug-free. So we tested that expanded pool
from February to June of 2000, and then we got sued by a student who
wouldn't sign the consent form."

That case is on appeal in New Jersey, with the drug-testing program halted
until a decision is handed down.

"We're waiting on them," Ms. Brady said, "and my guess is that they're
waiting on the Supreme Court."