MATHEWS SCRAPS STUDENT DRUG TESTS

Possible Lawsuit Prompts Board To Scuttle Plan

MATHEWS -- A possible lawsuit has derailed plans for voluntary drug testing
of Mathews High School students.

The testing program -- which had been recommended by a committee of school
officials, parents and students, and had been supported by the School Board
- -- was not opposed in the community.

However, a Daily Press editorial, an article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch
and other recent publicity resulted in an inquiry from the American Civil
Liberties Union of Virginia, school division Superintendent Harry Ward told
the Mathews School Board on Tuesday night.

Ward, a member of the drug-testing committee, consulted two lawyers who
advised against the program. A U.S. Supreme Court decision expected this
year might give school systems more guidance on the legalities of testing,
Ward said.

"Who knows how a court would rule? I don't want to spend the county's money
unwisely," Ward said Wednesday. "I'm also very protective of my
administrators' and my time. I'm not going to recommend a policy that I
think is going to throw me in court."

Ward said the ACLU requested information about the program, which was sent,
but didn't contact the school system after that.

ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis said Wednesday that the
program "clearly would have punished those who did not participate" because
it offered incentives for those who did. If the program had been enacted
and a Mathews student had complained to the ACLU, the organization likely
would have taken up the student's cause, Willis said.

"Our analysis of the program is that it was unconstitutional," he said.

Mathews High School Principal Mary Whitley, also on the 15-member
committee, told the board Tuesday that the committee's consensus was to
delay the program, though two parents on the committee wanted it to go
forward. It was supposed to begin in the fall, pending final approval by
the board.

The board tabled it last month to give the committee time to gather more
information about costs and incentives.

The proposed incentives for students included free parking at the high
school and tickets to events. Children and their parents would have had to
sign up for the program yearly if they wanted to participate.

Among those in the program, about 10 students would have been chosen at
random each month for free urine screenings for several drugs. If a test
result were positive, a second test would have been done to confirm it.

The program called for no school discipline for a first offense. A student
who had a second positive test would have been required to attend a
drug-treatment program at his or her expense.

The committee saw the program as a way to combat drug use, to get more
parents involved in the issue and to give students a means to say no if
friends were pressuring them to use drugs.

"We're initiating drug testing, but we're putting all the pressure on the
parent," Ward said last month. "If the child doesn't want to be tested,
does that raise a red flag? The pressure is back on the home."

He said Wednesday that the lawyers whom he consulted -- one from the
Virginia School Boards Association, another a specialist in school law --
said the incentives might have been seen as discriminatory. Principal
Whitley said that the committee saw the incentives as a positive aspect and
that the question of discrimination had not come up during about a year of
meetings.

There was another legal issue, Ward said. A student who did not want to
participate, for whatever reason, might have been perceived as a drug user.

"I really don't see it that way, but that's a personal opinion," Whitley
said. "We would do everything possible to keep it confidential."

But, the ACLU's Willis said, "Students talk, and there is likely to be
pressure even if the list of those in the program is confidential."

The idea was well-intentioned, Whitley said. Each year, five to 10 students
in the high school are suspended because of drug or alcohol use. The
program attempted to identify problems early.

"I would like for someone to help us figure out what to do," Whitley said.
"What is the answer?"

Willis said it's faulty logic to think that because drug abuse occurred
among teens, drug testing should be done. He compared it to saying that in
a high-crime neighborhood, house searches should be done without warrants.

"The schools are the places where children learn about constitutional
rights," Willis said. Such a program in a school sends "a very
contradictory message," he said.

Most school systems opt for educational programs to discourage drug use, he
said. Or they offer incentives for drug users to get treatment.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling expected this year is in an Oklahoma case
involving mandatory random drug screening of students who participate in
extracurricular activities.

The ACLU, representing three students, sued to stop the testing.

In an earlier case, the Supreme Court in 1995 upheld mandatory testing of
student athletes in an Oregon school district. But that case addressed
specific grave situations, such as a known drug culture among athletes that
increased their chances of injury.

Willis said it's unlikely that the new ruling would cover the kind of
voluntary testing proposed in Mathews.