If writer has
problem, get involved
To the editor:
In response to Gisbert Manskopf’s letter about South Hunterdon Regional High School posted March 15: How dare you write such a viscous. narrow-minded, short sighted letter.
It seems to me you obviously see only numbers and not what they truly represent. South Hunterdon is a small school with the smallest budget of seven million dollars compared to the rest of the county’s high schools with 50 million.
I don’t have exact numbers but I do have a ninth-grade child at this school. The $20,337 per pupil you were so proud to quote actually goes to our students. No child is left behind in South because they have an excellent special education program that helps our children with slight learning problems to the most difficult.
Our children do not get lost in the process because the teachers and special education teachers do not let them.
Because the county forgets they have this small little school, we don’t have big budgets for sports, arts, and music but this small insignificant school has these programs just the same. Would you like to know why? Because they have superintendents, a principal, vice principal, teachers and parents who care.
We have smaller classes and strict rules; every cent of our budget goes to our children.
I am proud my son goes to South Hunterdon. He gets the help he needs, goals to want to continue, plays sports all our children can because we have a no-cut policy.
Now, I don’t know if you have a child there or not, but if you do, it seems to me you might want to attend a PTSO meeting or a Board of Education meeting or the community meetings on the building projects. (You know that project that Mrs. Brady pushed through to update the school the county forgot about?)
How about instead of publicly bashing a high school, you set an example and volunteer to make it better. We’re in need of a JV baseball field because enrollment is climbing. Do you have a couple acres or some machinery to do this?
Well, you can bet that even with our puny budget, this small school will do what it has to for our children.
Also, besides the special education help, we also have an honors program and a computer system to inform all parents of meetings, activities, scholarship applications, etc.
Now I know you think our children cannot read, but I’m sure they can, and when they read your mean-spirited letter, how do you think they’ll feel?
Shame on you, Mr. Manskopf. Keep your poison pen locked up, and if you have a problem, get involved.
There is not a single administrator, teacher or coach who wouldn’t make time to speak to you. I know because I’m a parent who is involved with my son’s education. I attend meetings, and I’m in touch with his teachers at least three times a month.
Our children are our future. Please don’t degrade them with a public letter about their school. They do make a difference.
Ringoes
Don’t allow random
student drug testing
To the editor:
We agree drug use and abuse is a serious issue and whether or not to use drugs is among the most important decisions a young person will make.
That said, we are also strongly opposed to the policy of random, mandatory and suspicion-less drug testing being considered by the South Hunterdon Regional High School Board of Education.
This policy would require all students in grades seven through 12 who participate in extracurricular activities or who have parking permits at South Hunterdon High School to submit to random drug testing, involving the collection and testing of their urine.
We are not alone in our opposition to mandatory drug testing in the schools. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Education Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Association of Social Workers as well as the National Council on Alcohol and Drug Dependence itself are all opposed to such policies.
We oppose this policy for several reasons. The first and perhaps most important is this policy represents a serious violation of students’ civil rights.
While there are occasions of serious danger to the safety of a community in which civil rights must be suspended, we do not believe this is the case for students at South Hunterdon, especially since the students who participate in extracurricular activities are those students who are the least likely to use drugs and alcohol.
In fact, the most dangerous times for students in terms of risk to abuse drugs and alcohol are the hours after school and before parents return home from work. Drug testing this group of students is violating the civil rights of a group who are least likely to be at serious risk.
The choice to participate in extracurricular activities should not be accompanied by a requirement to be drug tested. Make no mistake, this policy forces students to choose between their civil rights and their ability to participate in meaningful school-sponsored activities. This is a coercive policy.
Another reason we oppose this policy is it intrudes on parents’ rights to determine the best interests of their children. This policy violates parents’ right to determine the medical, emotional and mental health needs of their children in the absence of any evidence of a problem.
We believe parents should be responsible for their children. If the school has a reason to suspect, on the basis of a child’s behavior or grades in school, a child has a problem (drug-related or otherwise), they should inform the parents who can then make appropriate decisions.
Sending our children to school and allowing or encouraging our children to be more involved with their school in the form of extracurricular activities should not require us to relinquish our rights as parents to make decisions regarding our children.
If parents want to have their children tested for drug use, this option is already available to them in what we believe is the more appropriate environment of their doctor’s office.
A third reason we are opposed to this policy is it is not effective, either in terms of deterrence or cost to the school. Mandatory, random and suspicion-less drug testing has not been found to be effective in deterring drug use among students.
In fact, in the only large-scale study to look at this issue, there was no difference in terms of drug use between schools that do and do not require drug testing.
Random drug testing has up-front and hidden costs associated with it. It will cost money not only to carry out the screening of urine samples, but it will cost money to train school personnel to implement this program in a way that is least likely to seriously harm a student.
It will cost money to defend the school against a potential lawsuit in which a student is harmed by the violation of their confidentiality, for example, teachers becoming aware of medical/psychiatric conditions; students being denied the opportunity for athletic scholarship because of a false positive drug test.
Given this is not an effective program, and the students who would be targeted by this program are also the least at risk for drug use and abuse, it makes more sense to us to use our scarce resources where they would benefit more students and the more at-risk students.
There are less costly and more effective alternatives. Offering and involving more students in extracurricular activities that would expose them to teachers and other positive role models and would productively occupy students at the time they are most at risk for drug and alcohol use is just one example.
Drug tests are not infallible or harmless nor are the results confidential. There are drug tests that are false positives. There are drug tests that are positive because of prescription medications.
In these cases, the positive drug test would expose a medical condition that a family would otherwise prefer to keep private.
Under the proposed policy, a positive drug test would result in the mandatory suspension of extracurricular activities or parking privileges, which would be punitive or at least detrimental, especially to vulnerable students.
These consequences would also lead, at minimum, to the speculation the student in question had tested positive for drugs, violating his or her right to privacy and confidentiality.
At South Hunterdon, we are a small community. The school already has a policy that allows for drug testing of students who shows signs of alcohol or drug use, albeit conducted in the more appropriate environment of a doctor’s office.
Because of our small size, we have the unique opportunity and ability to know our students, to build a community of trust and to involve our students in ways that would prevent first or subsequent drug use.
We are hopeful the Board of Education will decline to pass a policy requiring random and suspicion-less drug testing of our children. The present policy of drug testing for cause, combined with efforts to reach out and prevent drug use among the entire student body and, perhaps, especially among the disenfranchised students, would show our students we care about them to do the very best, even if it takes a little more effort on our part.
Jim Mastrich
Lambertville
Incumbents seek
voter support
To the editor:
April 17, the voters of West Amwell will have an opportunity to go to the polls to vote for the school budget and candidates for the West Amwell Board of Education.
As incumbents for reelection, we want to ask you to partner with us in supporting the children of our community.
Providing the best possible education in a fiscally responsible manner is our top priority. As the state puts greater constrictions on the programs we must provide, and as fixed costs consume greater portions of our budget, it is critical we use each discretionary dollar available and put it to good use.
Our school budget is a tool; an instrument that enables us to provide our students with outstanding educational experiences.
In addition, we ask for your support at the polls regarding our reelection. Although we are running unopposed, the support of our fellow community members is critical to our school.
Like you, we are residents of West Amwell, parents and taxpayers who believe in our township and are proud of how our school has flourished these past several years.
It is our perspective we work for the good of the community by making prudent educational investments that provide a foundation for highly productive and accomplished students. We invite you to attend our board meetings, visit our school and share your thoughts with us as we continue this important work.
P. Thomas Reischman
Viktor Paerg
West Amwell
Third-grader enjoyed
South production
To the editor:
Saturday, March 17, my parents and I saw "Guys and Dolls" at South Hunterdon Regional High School.
I enjoyed the play very much. The singing, dancing and acting were fabulous.
I was amazed the high school kids were that good. The music, costumes and background were awesome.
I want to thank my Mom and Dad for taking me to see the play. I also want to thank the people who set up the play and the actors.
third-grade student
West Amwell Elementary School

