BOE's support of random drug testing doesn't waver
Final vote on proposed policy scheduled for June 18
BY JENNIFER KOHLHEPP Staff Writer

ALLENTOWN - The Upper Freehold Regional School District is one step closer to implementing random drug testing for students in extracurricular activities.

The Board of Education unanimously voted to approve a second reading of its proposed Student Random Alcohol and Drug Testing Policy, which would implement random drug testing of high school students in athletics, extracurricular and co-curricular activities as well as students who have parking permits and students who have violated the district substance abuse policy. Board members Doug Anthony and Howard Krieger were not present at the May 21 meeting when the vote took place.

The board did not adopt the policy on the second reading and will hold a special, final vote on the issue at its June 18 meeting.

Prior to the vote on the second reading, Superintendent of Schools Dick Fitzpatrick said Dr. Steven Marcus gave board members "a new perspective" on random drug testing during a May 19 forum at the high school. Fitzpatrick also said that another presenter at the same forum, a local pediatrician, spoke about patients from the school district whom he tends to, including a student who had been a significant drug user since the fifth grade.

Fitzpatrick also told the board that the elementary/middle school recently held its Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DRUG) graduation, where he encouraged kids to make a commitment to themselves to not use drugs so they can achieve their destinies and reach their hopes and dreams.

During the first public portion of the meeting, Allentown High School senior Brendan Benedict, who is also a member of Students Morally Against Random Testing (SMART), told board members to consider that Marcus had pointed out that there are just as many studies that state random drug testing doesn't work to keep students off drugs as there are studies that say such testing does work.

Benedict also noted that Marcus spoke about students who harmed themselves using over-the-counter products to flush drugs out of their systems before drug tests.

"When they flushed out their systems, they flushed out all of the other nutrients in their bodies and wound up in the hospital," Benedict said. "You are considering ways to save one life, but there are so many ways to harm life with this also."

Benedict also said that Marcus spoke about false positives, stating that drug testing is riddled with errors and can't be called a perfect science. Benedict said board members should consider that students can test positive for alcohol after taking products like Nyquil or having a cold.

Benedict also reiterated that a representative from Sport Safe, a drug-testing company that the school district might employ, had stated that the tests would not be able to detect inhalants.

"What can't be found is Freon and huffing paint and household cleaners," Benedict said. "These things are more dangerous."

Benedict also said that the board has not alleviated concerns about students missing class time to participate in the testing, and girls having to provide urine samples while menstruating.

Before the board voted on the second reading, boardmember Lisa Herzer made a motion to revise the proposed policy to state that students would lose their parking privileges for a first offense of testing positive.

Allentown High School Principal Chris Nagy,who also serves on the school district's Random Drug Testing Committee, said the committee does not recommend suspending parking privileges for a first offense.

"The random testing committee met this past Friday and had a lengthy discussion, and the basic issue is that it would certainly apply to seniors and juniors but wouldn't be equitable in relation to sophomores and freshmen," Nagy said. "The committee is not in favor of singling out juniors and seniors for parking."

Herzer said that the policy already singles out juniors and seniors when it comes to a second offense.

"For a second offense, junior and seniors would be kept out of the prom and from graduating," she said. "It's just a matter of what students are participating in."

Fitzpatrick said revoking parking privileges for a first offense would make a first offense punitive,which the board had said it did not want to do.

"If we select some kids' privileges and not others, it's a matter of consistency," he said. Board member Patty Hogan asked if the school district could be held liable if it did not revoke the parking privileges of a student who tests positive and then gets into an accident on school property.

Board member Elizabeth Trent said, "If we provide parking spaces, we are enticing students to park. Enticing students that have non-negatives to drive becomes an issue for us. It's important for the committee to reconsider this issue."

Nagy said the committee continues to discuss school district liability issues with regard to proposed policy. He said the committee is looking into the possibility ofmaking it mandatory for a student who tests positive to have a note froma doctor stating that he/she is safe to return to school and a document from a parent stating the family is ultimately responsible for that student and their actions on school property.

Trent asked if the form to the parent, which the school district would send by certified mail, would be legal or informal.

Fitzpatrick said that any document could be challenged in court, but that the school district would have the form drawn up by an attorney.

Trent asked what would happen if the parents of a student who tested positive couldn't get an appointmentwith a doctor to get the required note.

"Tome, that's punitive," Trent said of the time the student would miss school.

Nagy said a student awaiting a doctor's note would be medically excluded from school and could make up missed work.

Trent also said that an appointment with the doctor the school uses would cost $300.

Nagy said parents could opt to use their own doctor for such a note, but said the school district would recommend using a certain doctor, who would charge $70 for an appointment.

After the discussion, the board voted unanimously to approve the second reading of the policy. Members said they would further discuss the parking privilege and liability issues at their June 4 workshop meeting.

If the board does not make any substantial changes to the proposed policy, it would hold a final vote on the policy June 18. Whereas the board usually takes a final vote on a second reading of a proposed policy, it decided earlier this year to allow for a special, final vote on the random drug-testing issue to give all interested parties enough time to voice their opinions.

After the board took its second reading vote, Benedict asked members for clarification regarding who would have to pay for a student who tested positive to visit a doctor for a note to return to school.

"If it's at the expense of the parents, it's a little ridiculous," he said. "This can be construed as punitive."

Benedict also told members that revoking the driving privileges of students who test positive could mean placing an unfair burden on the parents of those students who would have to find other means for their children to get to and from school and extracurricular activities.

In an interview regarding the board's unanimous approval of the policy on its second reading, Benedict said, "I challenge the board's competence to even read. The 'second reading' should have been just that, yet it was apparent that many members failed to read [the policy] for a first time."

Benedict noted that just prior to the vote, board President Joseph Stampe asked Nagy to include a section in the policy for parents to be able to opt their children into the random testing program, which is already part of the proposed policy.

When asked if the SMART group believes it has a chance of getting board members to reconsider implementing the random testing policy at this point, Benedict said, "Even though the board claims they are listening to what the community has to say, they aren't. They have a tendency to applaud people who agree with them and just stop listening if someone disagrees."

Benedict continued, "They have not addressed any of the privacy or efficacy concerns raised by parents and students. I think the only thing that will sway their opinion is a massive showing at subsequent meetings or serious threats of lawsuits."