Pubdate: Wed, 15 Aug 2001
Source: Log Cabin Democrat (AR)
Copyright: The Log Cabin Democrat
Contact:  http://thecabin.net/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/548
Author: Doug Crise

HIGH COURT COULD AFFECT SCHOOL DRUG TEST POLICY

Researcher Sees Potential For Reversal

Administrators in the Conway School District are joining school district 
officials throughout Faulkner County in awaiting a Supreme Court decision 
that could alter the way that drug tests are administered to students.

Starting at the beginning of the 2001-2002 academic year, Conway will join 
Vilonia and Greenbrier in adopting a policy for testing students for drug 
use. Taking effect for grades seven through 12, the policy will subject 
students engaged in all extracurricular activities to a random testing 
procedure.

While the move to testing has been made with a relatively low level of 
controversy, the constitutionality of the practice is in question. 
Information gathered by University of Arkansas at Little Rock journalism 
professor Bruce Plopper has suggested that an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court 
decision may set a precedent calling for the reversal of such policies in 
Faulkner County and across the nation.

Plopper's involvement with the drug testing issue began while researching 
the media's approach to school drug testing. His studies of the issue 
brought him to the case of the Tecumseh, Okla., School Board's appeal to 
the Supreme Court, a case that could determine the future of school drug 
testing.

According to Plopper, the Tecumseh district passed a policy of drug testing 
similar to that adopted by the Conway School Board. After a student sued 
the district claiming that the testing was a breach of privacy, a federal 
district court ruled in favor of the school's policy. The court's decision 
was then reversed by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, sparking the 
district's appeal to the Supreme Court.

Plopper's findings have raised questions as to whether or not the testing 
of students involved in extracurricular activities is a constitutional 
practice. Plopper said that the current policy of testing may be targeting 
the wrong population, citing that students involved in extracurricular 
activities are often heavily supervised, and thus less likely to be using 
drugs.

In addition, Plopper claims that the Conway district cannot claim in good 
faith that the school system is suffering from a high level of drug-related 
disruption. Statistics in a 1999 survey of students showed that 20.6 
percent of juniors and 22.3 percent of seniors regularly used drugs or 
drank to excess. The same survey also found that 61.1 percent of juniors 
and 56.3 percent of seniors were either drug and alcohol free or had only 
experimented with the substances once.

The findings of the survey were investigated by Plopper, who claims that 
the survey illustrated that more than 95 percent of the students classified 
as frequent drug users were not involved in extracurricular activities.

Plopper's analysis has been rebuked to some degree by Conway Superintendent 
Steve Fulmer, who claims that the institution of the testing policy goes 
far beyond targeting the disruptive behavior of select drug abusers.

"I think it will give students a good excuse not to succumb to peer 
pressure," said Fulmer, taking a position favored by most proponents of the 
policy.

Fulmer is joined by Conway High School West Principal Johnny Tyler in 
saying that the policy justifies its existence by striking a blow to peer 
pressure. Tyler said that students in extracurricular activities can feel 
more confident in refusing drugs when they have the drug testing policy to 
fall back on.

Under the policy, a student who tests positive for drug use will have the 
opportunity to appeal the test results and get retested at the cost of the 
parents. If the positive result stands, the student's parents will be 
notified and the student will be placed on a 20-day probation. During this 
time, the student is forbidden from engaging in extracurricular activities, 
and must attend counseling. At the conclusion of the probation, the student 
is reinstated to the activity, but is required to submit to monthly testing 
at the expense of the parents.

Fulmer said that the policy works to give students a way out of drug use 
and does not focus its energies on administering punishment.

"I feel like the policy itself is not punitive for any length of time," 
said Fulmer.

Though the policy has been in effect for more than two years in other 
districts in Faulkner County, the recent move by Conway to adopt the 
testing has spurred some complaints.

"First and foremost, I think it's a bad policy," said Lynn Plemmons, a 
Conway attorney with children in the Conway School District. Plemmons said 
that the policy sets a negative precedent when it comes to the privacy of 
students.

"It violates the right of children to be private in their bodies," said 
Plemmons. "It's a bad lesson for schools to be teaching children."

Plemmons said that the long-standing practice of some districts to drug 
test athletes and cheerleaders -- a policy adopted by the Mayflower 
district -- does not justify a branching out to other areas of activity. 
According to Plemmons, student athletes have a "reduced expectation of 
privacy" that is borne out of routines such as team showers and having to 
submit to physical examinations. Plemmons claims that such terminology 
cannot be similarly attached to students participating in other activities, 
such as choir or debate.

Plemmons goes further, saying that extracurricular students are put at a 
disadvantage due to being subjected to the testing procedure. Since 
students involved in activities must submit to the procedure if they are to 
continue in the activity, Plemmons said that students opposed to the policy 
are afforded little breathing room. Plemmons said that students opposed to 
the policy, but wishing to continue their participation in the activity, 
may file a petition claiming that the testing violates Article 2 of the 
Arkansas Constitution. Beyond that, Plemmons said that students have little 
other recourse short of attending a private school.

While Fulmer defends the merits of the testing policy, he said that the 
district remains open-mined about opposing viewpoints.

"We allowed for public input in several months time," said Fulmer. "We 
didn't want to do it if there wasn't a need."

Such a need is evident to Tyler, who said that the rise in popularity of 
undetectable drugs such as methamphetamine and ecstasy have made the task 
of spotting and disciplining drug users more difficult. In addition, Tyler 
claims that it has become increasingly more difficult for administrators to 
spot students at risk for drug use.

"Some of our 'good kids' have experimented (with drugs)," said Tyler.

While Tyler sees a clear need for a testing policy within the district, he 
has adopted an open attitude toward the possible ruling from the Supreme 
Court. Tyler admits that change may become necessary depending on the 
court's actions.

"We're going to have to wait and see what effect this policy is going to 
have," said Tyler. "It's a sad day when we start having to test our 
students for drugs."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart