Districts to create drug-testing policy

Random screenings on tap for students

By Jessica Ercolino, Staff Writer
   UPPER FREEHOLD — The Board of Education last week unanimously voted to formulate a policy for randomly drug testing Allentown High School students as early as the 2008-2009 school year.
   A group of administrators from the high school — deemed the Random Drug Testing Committee — presented a comprehensive study of seven other schools in New Jersey during the Jan. 16 Board of Education meeting.
   Generally, these schools randomly test students involved in athletics and extracurricular activities, as well as those parking on campus, according to Vice Principal Connie Embley. State law permits random drug testing of these students because these activities are voluntary, and schools can set conditions on participation.
   In Allentown High School, 85 percent of the student population falls into those categories, according to administrators.
   Students can refuse the testing, Ms. Embley said, but would not be permitted to participate in their school activities as a result.
   Under the proposed program, the school would select how often the screenings would take place and how many students would be tested.
   Districts such as Brick Memorial and Pequannock Pompton Plains reported testing every week. Others, such as Hunterdon Central and Middletown, do not follow a schedule in order to keep students uncertain of testing dates.
   During the presentation, Vice Principal Brian Myslynski stressed the fact that this random drug-testing program would be different from the school’s current drug policy, which would still be applicable in the new year.
   Students suspected of being under the influence of drugs or alcohol at school are subject to mandatory drug testing, according to policy. If the student tests positive, or refuses to take the test, a two-day out-of-school suspension and a five-day in-school suspension are given.
   The policy, which was updated in June 2006, took effect at the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year. That year, 20 students were sent for drug tests and 10 tested positive, according to Mr. Myslynski.
   The proposed random drug-testing program, however, would not be punitive or have any academic consequences for the student, according to Mr. Myslynski. It would be an effort to help students end their drug use, he said.
   A student who tests positive for drugs under this program would be required to attend four sessions with the school’s student assistant counselor (SAC) and preventative educational programs, according to the committee’s recommendations.
   The student would lose certain school privileges, such as parking on campus and walking in graduation, as well as participation in athletics, school activities and prom.
   These consequences could be alleviated if the student successfully completes a treatment program, according to Ms. Embley.
   The administration and the board agreed that implementing a random drug-testing program would be a preventive measure in keeping students away from drugs and encouraging them to make smart decisions. Several officials said that this program would give children a reason to say no and combat peer pressure.
   The committee also highlighted districts looking into ethyl glucuronide (EtG) tests to detect recent consumption of alcohol. Ms. Embley said this type of testing is not always effective because EtG cannot be detected 24 to 48 hours after consumption, but many of the board members expressed interest in it.
   ”Some parents don’t consider alcohol a drug,” said board member Lisa Herzer. “They don’t take it seriously, but it’s an epidemic.”
   Superintendent Dick Fitzpatrick called alcohol many students’ “drug of choice” and expressed concern over the power of peer pressure.
   ”Other adults may say it’s OK and act as a beacon for your children,” he said. “We need to look at helping parents who are responsible and teaching parents who are not.”
   Random drug testing can be done either on-site or off, with varying costs, depending on the method used, according to Ms. Embley. Options include panel urine cups ($18-$65), urine dipsticks ($7-$10) and swab tests ($3.50).
   Some districts that have implemented on-site testing have hired an additional school nurse, a random drug-testing coordinator or a clerical staff. Their salaries, coupled with the testing material costs and ancillary supply costs can all add to the school’s expense total, according to SAC Rick Rivera. Most schools that use on-site testing will send a result that tests positive to a lab for confirmation, which results in additional costs, he said.
   Modifications would also need to be made to bathrooms used for testing, including placing blue dye in the toilets, taping sink faucets to eliminate water that could dilute samples and removal of any other foreign substances from bathrooms that could adulterate test results, according to Mr. Rivera.
   Sterling High School in Somerdale uses Sport Safe Inc., a testing facility based in Ohio, to manage nearly all facets of the testing. The school is responsible for providing a database of eligible students and paying $27 per test.
   Because the procedures for testing have not been drafted, officials in Upper Freehold said they are unable to calculate the cost to the school and taxpayers, but they expressed interest in applying for a grant to cover the cost of the program. The current grant deadline is March 15, according to the Department of Education. After hearing the presentation, the board voted to formulate a policy for the program, which would be a joint effort between the board and the administration.
   Dr. Fitzpatrick noted that the program should be implemented as soon as possible, but not so quickly that it would become ineffective or cause an uproar in the community.
   ”We cannot look at this from a negative viewpoint. We’re not trying to catch our kids doing bad things,” the superintendent said. “We love our kids. They’re everything to us and we’d like them to have the chance to live our their destiny.”