Students
at area high schools facing random drug
testing
Sunday, September 05, 2004 • By PETER HALL
• The Express-Times
Students at three area high schools will return to
classes this year with the knowledge that they could be
randomly selected to take a drug test.
Hackettstown and North Hunterdon-Voorhees school
districts are following Hunterdon Central Regional High
School's lead in establishing their policies.
While Hunterdon Central cleared the way for the random
checks by winning a landmark state Supreme Court ruling that
established the right for schools to test their students,
the implementation of random drug testing policies at
Hackettstown and North Hunterdon-Voorhees has stirred
controversy.
Hunterdon Central's policy was established in 1997. At
first the policy covered only high school athletes, but was
later expanded to include participants in all
extracurricular activities and students who drive to
school.
Like Hunterdon Central, Hackettstown and North
Hunterdon-Voorhees will require parents to consent to the
testing when they sign permission slips for extracurricular
activities.
"We felt that substance abuse at any level is
unacceptable so we were willing to add another weapon to our
arsenal in the war against drugs," Hackettstown High School
Principal Chris Steffner said.
"We thought that this was another way to target a group
that, for the most part, fly under the radar. These are kids
that are thinking about using occasionally or use
occasionally," she said.
Dr. Charles M. Shaddow, superintendent at North
Hunterdon-Voorhees, said his district's program is a
two-year pilot program to test the efficacy of random
testing.
"I believe the board of education wanted to move forward
with this pilot study to determine whether we need a
permanent long-term random drug testing."
Both Hackettstown and North Hunterdon-Voorhees will
follow the same basic procedures established by Hunterdon
Central.
Students in clubs, sports teams and those who hold
parking permits will be assigned numbers in a database.
Parents may also voluntarily enter their children into the
testing pool.
Steffner said two students each week will be selected
randomly to provide a urine sample for testing. A number of
safeguards are built into the system to guard against false
positives, she said.
A student who tests positive for illegal drugs will be
required to attend substance abuse counseling and provide a
"clean" urine sample before they are allowed to resume their
extracurricular activity, Steffner said.
Steffner said the year-long process of developing and
implementing the policy generated some public interest, but
those opposed to it she described as a "vocal
minority."
Surveys and questionnaires about the proposed policy
mailed to students' homes were returned in large number,
which Steffner said she believes indicates most parents have
no strong feelings about it.
The North Hunterdon-Voorhees school board saw a similar
moderate level of opposition.
Shaddow said he agrees that the program raises some
important questions.
"The basic question is at what point should the schools
be involved in this process. Is this a normal and correct
kind of an action that the schools should be involved with
or is this an area in which the schools, parents and
community work together to improve the situation?
"Is this the proper venue, public schools? All along
that has been the issue," Shaddow said.
Hackettstown school board President Bruce Smith said
"there's no question," that the policy does require students
to sacrifice some privacy. But he believes, from parents'
and students' support of the policy, that the community is
willing to accept that sacrifice in order to keep kids away
from drugs.
"It has a quasi-voluntary flavor to it, in that nobody
is forced to take part in the activities or park on campus,
so they have a choice if they feel that strongly about it,"
he said.
The privacy question was at the heart of the legal fight
that eventually cleared the way for random testing.
In 2001, a group of parents concerned that Hunterdon
Central's policy constituted an invasion of privacy sued to
have the policy repealed. The New Jersey Supreme Court
upheld the policy in an 8-4 decision in 2003.
Justice Peter G. Veniero wrote in the majority opinion
that students have a diminished expectation of privacy under
the state constitution and that Hunterdon Central's policy
is not unreasonable or unfair.
However, Veniero said the ruling doesn't open doors for
other schools to institute similar policies. Schools must
first show that there is a need to deter drug use among
students.
Veniero's words of caution against widespread adoption
of drug testing are why members of the Allamuchy Township
school board voted unanimously to oppose Hackettstown's drug
testing policy.
Allamuchy sends its high school age students to
Hackettstown, who make up 12 percent of the student
body.
Board President Keith Green said Allamuchy school board
members felt the Hackettstown school board had failed to
heed the corollary of Veniero's opinion by providing data
that shows the school has a need for drug testing.
The Allamuchy school board instructed its representative
on the Hackettstown school board, John Egan, to vote against
it. Egan and Great Meadows School District representative
Robert Jones cast two of the three votes against the policy.
Hackettstown board member Peter Haag cast the third.
Green said the Allamuchy board has sought and received a
legal opinion, but won't take action at this time. He said
board members will wait and see how the policy works.
Smith said the policy is an experiment in balancing
concerns for privacy and students' safety.
"The board is willing to see how this runs for a year
and we have the ability to make changes or eliminate it all
together," he said.
Reporter Peter Hall can be reached at 610-258-7171 or by
e-mail at phall@express-times.com.
Copyright 2004
The Express-Times. Used with permission.
|