Pubdate: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 Source: Paris Beacon-News (IL) Copyright: 2005 The Paris Beacon Contact: http://www.parisbeacon.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3141 Author: Gary Henry Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Test) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/youth.htm (Youth) SHILOH BOARD DEFENDS DRUG TESTING POLICY Growing concern within the Shiloh School District about the district's drug testing policy prompted a discussion among board members Monday night. No critics of the policy attended the meeting and board members expressed little desire to change or eliminate the policy. Shiloh requires that every student participating in junior high and high school extracurricular activities or students who drive to school be tested for drug use. District superintendent Jim Acklin explained that recent criticism focused on the district's tobacco stance. He said that some community members claim it is unfair to punish 18-year-old students who test positive for tobacco, which is a legal product for students of that age. Acklin expressed support for the basic premise of student drug testing. "I like it from the standpoint that it gives young people an opportunity to say, 'no,'" stated Acklin. He acknowledged a more ambivalence for 18-year-old students who can legally use tobacco and perhaps only drive to school, but he added it is his responsibility to administer the policy as written. He has no tolerance for athletes of any age using tobacco. "As a former coach, I have strong feelings about what athletes put in or shouldn't put in their bodies," said Acklin. "A basketball player should not be smoking." Board member Kim Brown supported continued sanctions against 18-year-old students who use tobacco. He said it is proper to deny them participation in school events such as the prom or the senior trip because they might smoke during such occasions. He was supported by board member Debby Young. She argued age is irrelevant because each student participating in extracurricular activities or who drives to school signs an agreement acknowledging they are subject to drug testing. "If they sign the agreement, they need to honor it," said Young. "They have to decide if they want to smoke or participate in school activities." Board president Tom Patchett agreed that athletes should be barred from tobacco use but he expressed uncertainty about the district's punitive actions against 18-year-olds who only drive to school and test positive for tobacco. "I don't class it with other drugs that are more dangerous, more quickly," said Patchett. Young disagreed that other drugs are more dangerous than tobacco. She said as a nurse she cares for far more people on ventilators after a lifetime of tobacco use than she does for people who abused other substances. "Tobacco is a drug like anything else," insisted Young. Board member Paul Freebairn complained that the drug testing program is not truly random as it is supposed to be. "In a small school like this, it is public knowledge who's using, but they never get called," stated Freebairn. School principal Deb Derby said the system is entirely random. She explained that students in the testing pool receive a new number every year. She submits the numbers to the lab along with information regarding how many students are to be called for each test, how many tests are to be conducted and when school is in session. Derby said the testing lab determines when the tests will be conducted and the lab computer randomly generates the numbers that determine which students will be tested. District administrators do not know in advance when the lab has a test scheduled or which students will be called. Acklin used himself as an example of how random testing works. He has a commercial drivers license to drive school buses. He said during one period he was tested three months in a row but his name has not been called for almost two years. "When your name goes back into the pool, it's the same odds each time,"said Acklin. The superintendent suggested the possibility of seeking a Drug Free School grant to fund a one-time test of everybody in the testing pool. It was estimated a one-time test of everybody would cost $2,000, which is almost equal to the $2,800 the district spends for yearly random tests. Freebairn liked that idea and said it would go a long way toward dispelling the belief that the tests are arranged to get the maximum negative results. Brown doubted the tests target only students likely to yield a negative. He told board members that he observed a recent testing during which one student took an unusually long time in the toilet and the sample the student supplied looked more like apple juice than urine. Nor did the sample have the correct temperature. That sample, said Brown, was rejected by school nurse Georgia Horsley. Acklin was confident the testing procedure catches users as well as nonusers. He received a report from one student that a second student called for testing was asking others being tested that day to sneak a cup into the toilet to leave an extra sample that the second student could submit as his own. Board member Judy Tharp questioned if widespread opposition to drug testing exists among the students. She claimed students who are clean and don't have anything hide do not object to the tests, whereas the complaints are coming from students engaged in unacceptable activity. A criticism that testing should include the faculty was addressed by board member Samantha Hutchinson. She said drug testing the faculty is not possible because of contractual arrangements. Tharp concurred with Hutchinson's assessment. "I asked the school attorney about negotiating that several years ago, and he said, 'Don't go there,'" said Tharp. None of the board members advocated changing the policy because there is the perception that it is an effective tool in discouraging student drug use. Patchett said the testing history shows that during the first year of the program the district had 19 percent positive tests but within two years the positive results made a significant drop. "That first year, you had kids showing up under the influence of alcohol," said Acklin. "That isn't happening anymore." - ---