White House weighs in on drug-testing issue UFRSD to decide on testing students June 18 BY JENNIFER KOHLHEPP Staff Writer The White House called in this week to discuss its stance on the random drug testing of students. The Upper Freehold Regional School District has scheduled the final vote for June 18 on its proposed student random 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. Stephen E. Schatz, deputy press secretary for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), contacted the Examiner about recent articles on the controversy over the proposed policy. He offered information as well as an interview with ONDCP Deputy Director of Demand Reduction Bertha K. Madras. Madras said the ONDCP promotes U.S. Department of Education grants for the random drug testing of students in schools. She said all school districts hoping to implement a random drug testing policy must follow certain criteria set forth by two Supreme Court rulings on the issue. Madras said random drug policies must be nonpunitive, have community buy-in and meet a demonstrated need. Describing some of the questions school districts should ask themselves before implementing such a policy, Madras said, "Do you have a need? Have you polled your students and your community? Have you determined that you have a drug problem that has not yielded to different prevention means and additional programming?" According to Schatz, random drug testing of students in this country has been going on since the mid 1980s. "It's not a new tool that schools are using, but it has gained attention in the past five to ten years because of the two Supreme Court rulings," he said. Schatz said a 1995 ruling allowed schools to start testing studentswho participate in athletics and a 2002 ruling expanded the testing to students who opt into it with parent/guardian consent and who participate in extracurricular activities. "It's really a local decision to implement this," Schatz said. "This is not coming from D.C. Schools have to reach a consensus on the issue with their communities by talking to the PTA, student government and leaders, coaches, local politicians and other officials and the police. Schools must survey about the necessity for a program. And, if they think they need help, should knowthat this is not a cure-all to a community's drug problem." He said this year, theDepartment of Education awarded 29 entities, including school districts in Brick Township,Hillsborough Township and Oradell in New Jersey, grants for random drug testing. He said grants range from $56,000-$200,000, depending on the size and need of the school district applying. He said since 2003, over $40 million has been awarded to 80 school districts to support student drug testing in 400 schools across the country. Schatz reiterated that school districts must follow the Supreme Court rulings on randomdrug testing when implementing it in order to be eligible for a grant from the federal government. "Students cannot be suspended or expelled and testing cannot affect the academic life of a student in any way," he said. "Test results have to remain confidential and can only be shared on a need-to-know basis." When asked if a school administrator or other school staff needs to know the results on any occasion, Schatz said each school district develops its own policy regarding who needs to know. Madras said the only information the ONDCP gleans from schools that test their students is anonymous counts of howmany students are participating in the testing and at what grade levels. "That's as deep as we can go," she said. When asked how random drug testing does not violate the nation's Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act standards,Madras said, "I'mnot a lawyer. I have no legal response to this." When asked why the random testing of students does not violate students' rights to privacy under the FourthAmendment of the Constitution, Madras said, "The Supreme Court ruling in 1995 dealt directly with this issue, and then itwas added onto the one on 2002. The safety of the students and their environment is critical to thewell-being and health of the student population. Random drug testing is permitted under a certain condition, which is simple. It's purpose is to protect the health and well-being of students in enjoying extracurricular activities." Madras said ONDCP considers random drug testing to be a public health approach to a problem among students. She said schools that implement such policies should keep them focused on informing parents and linking students to counseling. Madras concluded by saying, "Many students feel blessedwhere this programexists as it has saved them from the potential scourge of drugs." The Upper Freehold Regional Board of Education charged a committee in the spring of 2007 to provide an analysis of random drug testing. The committee created a draft policy to clarify a randomdrug testing process that if adoptedwould be followed by a set of regulations thatwould guide the implementation of this policy. The board is now considering implementing and conducting random drug testing of students in athletics, extracurricular and co-curricular activities as well as studentswho have parking permits for on-campus parking and studentswho have violated the district substance abuse policy. The policywould apply to all students in grades 9-12 who participate in athletics, cocurricular activities, or possess a school parking permit aswell as students in grades 9-12 who voluntarily elect to participate in the program with parental consent. Those students would have to provide custodial parent/guardian written consent for drug testing. Those students who do not sign a consent form or have it signed by their parents would not be able to participate in the aforementioned activities. The school district would test participating students on a periodic basis during the course of the school year. A designated administrator or contracted drug testing provider would randomly draw the names of a minimum of 10 percent of the participants for testing. The randomly chosen students and their parents would be notified and the students tested,which includes providing a urine sample, the same day. Students who refuse or deliberately avoid testing or mask testing results or have a positive resultwould be deemed in violation of the high school's policy. The district would not release results or resulting actions to anyone other than the affected students and parent/guardian. Responses for positive test findings vary according to the number of infractions a student has had. For the first infraction, the principal or vice principal would call the student's parents and have themremoved fromschool to make arrangements for the mandatory medical examination pursuant to state statute. The student would complete aminimum of five counseling sessions with the substance awareness coordinator, who would determine the appropriate level of treatment. Treatment, according to the policy, could entail attending a prevention/education program at a licensed substance abuse treatment agency or signing into or completing a drug/alcohol in-patient rehabilitation program as well as regular meetings with the substance abuse coordinator. For a second infraction, a student falls subject to all first-infraction responses and to having to complete at least 10 counseling sessions with the substance awareness coordinator and attending a rehabilitation programwithin one week of the offense, the policy states. Parents/guardians would be responsible for the cost of the treatment program. The student would continue in the recommended after-care programas well asmeet regularly with the substance awareness coordinator, according to the draft policy. For a second infraction, the student would be suspended from sports/activities/ parking and any Board of Education sponsored activities for 60 days. The student would be able to resume activity participation upon submission of a clean urine sample and completion of the required counseling sessions. The student would also fall subject to three more random tests. A third infraction would result in all second infraction responses, but the student would be suspended fromsports/activities/ parking for 365 days. This suspension would also include all Board of Educationsponsored activities, according to the draft policy. The policy also states that failure to comply with its guidelines after any infraction could lead to intervention meetings among the student, parent/guardian and administration and possible referral to the Division of Youth and Family Services. The board is set to vote on the policy at its June 18 meeting, which starts at 7:15 p.m. in themedia center of the Upper Freehold Regional Elementary/Middle School.