dad campaigns to stop school drug testing
Related Topics
Jasbird Jasbird#dead-mail-b...@myrealbox.com
<http://www.news-leader.com/today/0909-Marshfield-158542.html> Published September 9, 2003 Marshfield dad campaigns to stop school drug testing Most students and parents support policy on extracurricular activities, officials say.
By Susan Atteberry Smith News-Leader Marshfield - Adriane Sparks - a straight-A eighth-grade student at Marshfield Junior High - might not play her flute in the band, sing in the choir or take part in a model U.N. council this year.
That's because her father, Don, refuses to sign his name to a consent form that would give the Webster County school district permission to have his 13-year-old daughter's urine tested for drugs.
"She has consented to at least give me to the 15th to resolve this," Sparks said Monday. "She's pretty upset with me." At the Marshfield School Board's Monday meeting, Sparks will go before the group to protest the drug-testing policy approved in July for junior high and high school students. He has also begun a petition drive to ask the school board to rescind the rule, which he believes invades kids' privacy and targets the wrong students.
The policy is one of the few in the region mandating that students must submit to random drug tests in order to participate in any school-sponsored team or club.
If students and their parents don't sign the consent forms to join the drug-testing pool, students don't get to take part in extracurricular or co-curricular activities.
This year, five junior-high students, 10 high school students, and one faculty member will be tested about every two weeks. Testing has not yet begun this fall.
District officials say the policy is an effort to stem the abuse of drugs among Marshfield's more than 1,100 secondary students.
They say the consequence of testing positive - suspension from an activity for 28 days for first offenders - will give students one more reason to say no to drugs.
And they say most parents and students support the drug-testing policy, a subject of discussion at board meetings since February.
"The majority - the vast majority - were supportive," said School Board President Jo Walker, who voted for the policy.
Parents like Susan Case, owner of Beckerdite Music Co.
"I'm totally for it," Case said as Marshfield band students trickled in and out of the downtown store. "My son's in basketball, and he's for it." Of more than 500 high school students surveyed in May, 62 percent said random drug testing is a good idea, Superintendent Michael Wutke said.
Jena Graham, a 17-year-old senior who performs in plays at the school, said the controversial drug-testing policy is no different from what she will encounter some day in the workplace. "It's the way life is," she said.
Since the policy was approved, at least 40 faculty members have also volunteered to be in the drug-testing pool, although they're not required to undergo tests.
"The support has been overwhelming, compared to those against it," said Wutke, who on Monday reported more than 80 percent of students had returned signed forms.
But not everyone has signed willingly.
Parent-Teacher ***ociation President Amy Ward signed the consent form for her 16-year-old son, Russell, by last Friday's deadline - but only because she wanted him to be able to continue his membership in Future Farmers of America.
"I did sign the paper, and I did write at the bottom of it that I was signing it against my will," Ward said.
"I didn't think it was fair to punish him by not signing it." Jennifer Baldwin asked her husband, Jim - a school board member who voted against the policy - to pen his signature at the bottom of their daughter Katie's consent form.
The 13-year-old eighth-grade student takes part in band, basketball, cross-country and TATU - Teens Against Tobacco Use.
"I made him do it," Jennifer Baldwin said. "I refused to." It's not that they don't care about keeping drugs out of high school activities, detractors of the policy say. "We're as anti-drug as any community," said Sparks.
They contend district officials didn't do enough to seek public input before the board's vote.
And they argue that the resulting code sends the wrong message to uninvolved students who might otherwise take part in school activities.
Enough notice?
Wutke noted the policy had been publicly discussed since February's board meeting.
But Sparks said notices of district board and committee meetings are hard to find because they're typically posted in only a handful of public places around town such as the district's central administration building and the Webster County Courthouse.
"The only reason I knew about (the vote) ahead of time was I attend board meetings regularly, but there's only two or three of us who do that," agreed Parent-Teacher ***ociation officer Wendy Mangum.
"I would have loved for them to send home stuff with my child before school was out last year. That would have been a great way to inform everybody." Sparks also said meeting notices from the committee ***igned to study drug-testing - a 10-to-15-member group of administrators, parents and students - weren't posted enough ahead of time.
Wutke disputed the contention that the district tried to keep opportunities for public discussion about the policy to a minimum.
"We certainly weren't trying to hide anything," Wutke said. "That's why we started in February." Problems with policy Students in school-sponsored activities deserve the benefit of the doubt, Baldwin said, yet the policy has a "guilty until proven innocent" premise.
The wrong students are not being tested, Sparks agreed, saying the policy sends the message of "submit to achieve." "We're not testing the kids who have behavior problems, who destroy school property," he said.
"These are the problem kids. We're not doing anything to help them." Terri Bitting, one of four parents who questioned the policy at a July board meeting, believes the $4,700 to be spent on the testing this year could be used in a more positive way.
The policy draws attention away from students who need it most, she said: students who aren't involved in school activities and might be more likely to use drugs and alcohol.
"What you do is you knock out a percentage of children who may be the most desperate for involvement or for some way of being recognized because they're not getting (attention) at home," she said.
Added Lori Pickett, the parent of three high school students: "I think they're going to make kids not want to do extracurricular activities." And in Mangum's eyes, the policy just won't work because the urine tests can't screen students for some commonly abused substances.
"I really feel like this isn't going to keep drugs out of the school," she said.
"It's not testing alcohol; it's not doing anything about teens and tobacco; it's not doing anything about steroids in athletes." Such complaints will be aired during the Monday meeting, one that board president Walker expects will be stressful. She said she couldn't speculate whether the board would want to reconsider the policy if enough parents objected.
"I wish we could've heard these comments prior (to the vote)," she said.
guidosjunkm ...@yahoo.com (Guido Marx)
No doubt a similar number of these people would have been in favor of loyalty oaths. The father of this girl is teaching her an invaluable lesson. Stand up for your rights - don't just lie down and accept something that is wrong because a lot of other people think it's cool.
Guido
px ...@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel)
Also this is a simplistic solution to the perceived problem that actually has the unintended consequence of further alienating a child who may experiment and thus possibly driving the child to more serious drug use.
Much better to reward children who want to participate in extracurricular activities by NOT testing them and only keeping them from engaging in the activities if they show up actually impaired -- and allowing them back as soon as they are not obviously impaired.
The carrot works much better than the stick.
-Pete Zakel (p...@seeheader.nospam) William Safire's Rules for Writers: Remember to never split an infinitive. The p***ive voice should never be used. Do not put statements in the negative form. Verbs have to agree with their subjects. Proofread carefully to see if you words out. If you reread your work, you can find on rereading a great deal of repetition can be avoided by rereading and editing. A writer must not shift your point of view. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction. (Remember, too, a preposition is a terrible word to end a sentence with.) Don't overuse exclamation marks!! Place pronouns as close as possible, especially in long sentences, as of 10 or more words, to their antecedents. Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided. If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is. Take the bull by the hand and avoid mixing metaphors. Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky. Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in their writing. Always pick on the correct idiom. The adverb always follows the verb. Last but not least, avoid cliches like the plague; seek viable alternatives.
Gray Shockley gray...@cybercoffee.org
This is an example of what "used ta be". Has anyone else noticed this transformation in the past few years?
Safire is using the "rule" which we were all taught.
And the "correct" version was: "Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in /his/ writing. " Then: "Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in /his or her/ writing." But more often: "Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in their writing".
Gray Shockley Vicksburg, MS US
--------------------------------------------------------
"ColoradoSkiBum" coloradoski...@hotmail.com
...
: <http://www.news-leader.com/today/0909-Marshfield-158542.html> : Published September 9, 2003 : : Marshfield dad campaigns to stop school drug testing : : Most students and parents support policy on extracurricular : activities, officials say.
: : By Susan Atteberry Smith : News-Leader <snip> : This year, five junior-high students, 10 high school students, and one : faculty member will be tested about every two weeks. Testing has not : yet begun this fall.
What I can't believe is that the *teachers* are actually going to put up with this! One teacher a week? My union would have a field day with that!
--
ColoradoSkiBum
"R. Steve Walz" rste...@armory.com
Yup.
Testing does NOT indicate "showing up impaired", it shows residue from weeks previous isolated use and does NOT indicate current state.
What testing DOES do is instigate HUGE increases in the dropout rate everywhere it's been tried, even where they DON'T suspend students.
THAT'S the dirty little secret they don't want to tell you. We need MORE kids in school in ANY condition AT ALL, thanks!
Steve
Bob LeChevalier loj...@lojban.org
Not likely. Drug testing where there is a legitimate government purpose (in this case setting a good example for kids) has been repeatedly upheld by the courts.
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
brian bennett shp...@mindspring.com
what sort of "good" do you imagine results when the government defiles the constitution?
b
--
citizen, patriot, stoner Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think.
visit truth: the Anti-drugwar at http://www.briancbennett.com Ask these former drug warriors why drugwar doesn't work: http://www.leap.cc/main.htm
Jenn j...@hmplc.com
the purposeof the 'no child left behind act' as well as these drug programs is to push kids out of school and thus reduce cost
Jenn j...@hmplc.com
teaching kids that they should allow the state to invade their physical privacy for no reason is hardly a legitimate government purpose we are training our kids to be little fascists
guidosjunkm ...@yahoo.com (Guido Marx)
I would guess that one of the primary effects of drug testing would be to cause kids to use drugs like alcohol and amphetamines rather than marijuana. Alcohol or amphetamines will be out of your system and undetectable Monday morning after a weekend of partying - marijuana metabolites OTOH, will hang around for a couple of weeks.
Kids aren't stupid - they know this.
Guido
"R. Steve Walz" rste...@armory.com
+> >: This year, five junior-high students, 10 high school students, and one
---------------
Doesn't matter, the interests of a union can negotiate against any activity that is optional, and that testing was optional for the school board, not mandatory for all school districts, but a choice, so union demands can mitgate against it if enough teachers choose to.
Anyway, nothing like that works if enough people say no, whether parents or teachers.
Steve
"R. Steve Walz" rste...@armory.com
No, they gain revenue sharing for attendance, but many moralistic puritan bullshit artists are allowed by these crypt-fundies to browbeat and guilt and wheedle and threaten them into shit like this. Obedient little Xtian morons are easily guilted into all manner of fascist shit. If you can be made to believe the bible, then you'll believe ANY ****ing thing.
Steve
"R. Steve Walz" rste...@armory.com
Very true. I've heard kids say that.
Steve
Bob LeChevalier loj...@lojban.org
Ashcroft has been setting that example for a couple of years now.
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
px ...@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel)
It's because of the reluctance to use "his" as a generic pronoun for a person of undetermined gender.
Some people will use "her" now. Some people will sometimes use "her" and sometimes use "his". I've seen "hir" used (I've used it a few times).
Since we don't have any gender neutral singular pronouns ("its" implies lack of gender and is typically not used to refer to people), the use of the plural "their" to substitute for the more correct but more awkward "his or her" has become an acceptable solution for many people.
-Pete Zakel (p...@seeheader.nospam) "It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice versa."
dragonlady meho...@REMOVEpacbell.net
I know what the supreme court has ruled; I think they are wrong. (Yes, I know they are the experts and I'm not -- I still think they are wrong.) What's more, even if the Wise Nine rule that schools CAN do this, it doesn't mean they HAVE TO do this -- and I think it's a just plain Bad Idea.
And don't get me started on J. Edgar Ashcroft . . . . .
meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care
Jenn j...@hmplc.com
that is no reason to subject someone to a drug test -- it is subject training, obedience training, fascist underling training -- it is not the way to raise free citizens of a free country the only reason to subject a child to a drug test in a school is if the child shows up for the team impaired [or cl***, or the club or whatever]
px ...@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel)
Even then there is no reason to drug test. Best to ***ume the child may be ill and send him or her to the school nurse. If it is obvious drug impairment (be it alcohol, pot, or whatever) or the child admits to drug use, mete out an appropriate punishment (loss of privileges for a short time or whatever) but do NOT excuse them from school work, especially if this is the first time. Get the parents involved.
Showing up obviously impaired should not be excused, but I can't see how testing can be warranted unless it is suspected the student took a lethal or near-lethal dose of something and testing is the only way to determine the course of action for saving the child's life.
-Pete Zakel (p...@seeheader.nospam) "We're deep into the holiday gift-giving season, as you can tell from the fact that everywhere you look, you see jolly old St. Nick urging you to purchase things, to the point where you want to slug him right in his bowl full of jelly." -Dave Barry, "Simple, Homespun Gifts"
guidosjunkm ...@yahoo.com (Guido Marx)
Or students. I'd guess that the quickest way to reverse this would be for the starting football team members to refuse testing. The school board would reverse itself so fast it'd make your head spin...
Guido
"ColoradoSkiBum" coloradoski...@hotmail.com
>> >What I can't believe is that the *teachers* are actually going to put up : >> >with this! One teacher a week? My union would have a field day with that!
: >> : >> Not likely. Drug testing where there is a legitimate government : >> purpose (in this case setting a good example for kids) has been : >> repeatedly upheld by the courts.
: > : >teaching kids that they should allow the state to invade their physical : >privacy for no reason is hardly a legitimate government purpose : : The reason is that they wish to participate in clubs or other : extra-curricular activities.
Teaching is an extra-curricular activity?
--
ColoradoSkiBum
"ColoradoSkiBum" coloradoski...@hotmail.com
: the only reason to subject a child to a drug test in a school is if the : child shows up for the team impaired [or cl***, or the club or whatever] Actually 3 reasons I can think of to test kids or anyone else for that matter: 1. They're operating heavy equipment, someone could get hurt if they're operating that equipment impaired. Don't think I can hurt somebody with my overhead projector.
2. They're participating in a sport where performance-enhancing drugs may be in use. In this case **only** the performance-enhancing drugs (such as steroids) should be tested for.
3. The one most people forget about--PROBABLE CAUSE
--
ColoradoSkiBum
"ColoradoSkiBum" coloradoski...@hotmail.com
: Not likely. Drug testing where there is a legitimate government : purpose (in this case setting a good example for kids) What a crock of shit. What next, they get to follow us around on weekends?
To make sure we're "setting a good example for kids"? Oops--OMG--I just used a cuss word in a newsgroup post--what a poor example!
--
ColoradoSkiBum
Bob LeChevalier loj...@lojban.org
Actually it was an acceptable solution for many people several hundred years ago, blessed in usage by Shakespeare among others: Merriam-Webster: lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier loj...@lojban.org
Sorry. If the kid has broken the law, they should get the law enforcement officials involved, and THEY should be the ones calling the parents. If your kid breaks the law, it is no longer within your family.
In many locales, the "appropriate punishment" for a drug offense is expulsion from the school. At the very least, it is total banning for the year from the extracurricular activity in question. Using drugs is not a wrist-slap offense, like talking in cl***.
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
| To Top |