Independent Perspective News

By TAMAR LEWIN

NEW BUFFALO, Mich. — In this serene lakeside town, a group has gathered at the high school each week since August to try to hammer out a consensus on drug testing in the schools: a pastor, a basketball coach, a sheriff, a social worker, a superintendent and assorted parents, teachers, students and school board members.

They have debated whether a first offense should bring counseling or punishment and whether they can best deter drug use through education or testing. They have studied the merits of urine, hair and saliva tests. But week after weary week, they have adjourned without agreement.

"It cuts deep down to how one sees the world, and people have different views," said Michael Lindley, the superintendent.

"Some say it's invasive and you're assuming my child is guilty until proved otherwise. Others say if kids have nothing to hide, it's not invasive. We don't have a huge drug problem here but we don't want to have our heads in the sand."

Until last spring, when the United States Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, that schools could conduct drug tests on students involved in extracurricular activities, the school board here had given the matter little thought. But now, here and in small towns across the nation, drug testing has become a hot issue. Rather than resolving the question, it seems, the court's decision has touched off a new round of passionate debate.

From Glen Cove, N.Y., to Lockney, Tex., hundreds of school boards are now considering whether — and how — to use drug tests. The proposals they are considering range from voluntary programs offering incentives like discount coupons for students who agree to be tested, to, in a few places, testing all students.

Before the Supreme Court's decision, about 5 percent of the nation's public school districts conducted drug tests of student athletes — a practice that the court upheld in 1995. But many districts decided the legal parameters of testing were so uncertain that they should await further guidance before adopting a plan.

The new ruling opened the way for much wider testing of students. It upheld the Tecumseh, Okla., schools' policy that required random urine testing as a condition for participating in any extracurricular activity involving interscholastic competition, including sports teams, the chorus and the Future Homemakers of America. Lindsay Earls, the student who challenged the policy, said it violated her privacy rights and the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches. But the majority opinion, by Justice Clarence Thomas, said the search was entirely reasonable, given the nationwide epidemic of drug use by schoolchildren. By emphasizing the schools' "custodial responsibilities" for their students, the majority opinion seemed to point to judicial support for testing all students.

Most large urban districts have shown no interest in drug testing. But many smaller districts, especially in the South and Midwest, are very interested. The Tecumseh district has received a stream of calls from school districts that want copies of its drug-testing policy.

"It's stayed steady ever since the ruling," Danny Jacobs, Tecumseh's assistant superintendent, said recently. "I had two calls just this morning. I tell everybody to read the policy we've posted on the Web. Then they call back and ask how we started, and how we put it in place. It isn't letting up at all yet."

While the court ruling resolved some of the legal questions, it did nothing to end the controversy about whether drug testing programs make sense as educational policy.

Many health and education groups, from the National Education Association to the American Academy of Pediatrics, oppose drug testing. Students involved in extracurricular activities, they argued in the Tecumseh case, are less likely than others to use drugs, so requiring drug tests as a condition of participation may scare students away from the very activities that help deter drug use.

The Drug Policy Alliance, an advocacy group in Oakland, Calif., that opposes drug testing, recently started a project to help parents and educators who want to resist school boards' efforts to begin drug testing.

But last month the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy began distributing a guide supporting drug testing in schools.

"Testing has been shown to be extremely effective at reducing drug use in schools and businesses," the government guide said. "As a deterrent, few methods work better or deliver cleaner results."

John Walters, director of the White House office, stresses that community debate is crucial in deciding whether to adopt random drug testing. "It's a very, very powerful tool," Mr. Walters said. "But it's not for everybody, and it's not a drop-in, add-water, solve-the-problem kind of tool. You need to have the local community work through the issue, talking to parents and kids and the people who do drug treatment."

To avoid all legal uncertainty, some districts are modeling their testing plans directly on the Tecumseh policy upheld by the court: Each month, a group of students in extracurricular activities is chosen, at random, to provide a urine sample. Those who test positive are initially sent for counseling and, in case of a second offense, suspended from extracurricular activities.

"I tell districts that if they adopt the same verbatim policy as Tecumseh, that would be safe," said Paul Lyle, a Plainview, Tex., lawyer who represents about 50 small West Texas districts. "But I tell them, if you change a comma, it could open the door to something. "

The Lockney district is one of his clients that has followed that advice. Previously, Lockney adopted random testing for all students, but when the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the policy, Lockney agreed to stop enforcing it. But after the Supreme Court ruling, Lockney wanted to resume drug tests, and on Sept. 17, the school board voted unanimously to adopt the Tecumseh policy.

Next page >