Drugs, schools and who to test
Comment on this
Friday, May 09, 2008
One would almost believe that our public schools have become modern opium dens if you follow the news coming out of some area school districts.
Random drug testing appears to be the latest trend, and Jennifer Kern, youth policy manager for the Drug Policy Alliance, wrote this week that White House officials are "touring the country, hosting summits designed to entice local educators to start drug testing their students — randomly and without cause."
Extras
Get latest headlines via RSS feedsRandom drug testing of students is only one part of the equation. Edgewood remains the only Butler County district randomly testing its students — with three students testing positive so far since last fall — because Fairfield school officials and parents decided against a testing program after studying it extensively.
The other part of the equation are the employees of a school district. Ohio school districts are already required to test the drivers of buses and other vehicles for drug use, and there's no question that program is needed to ensure the safety of young passengers and other motorists. Too many recent accidents in this region involving school buses have also involved drug abuse by drivers.
So what about other employees, including the largest group — teachers?
The Madison Board of Education last month became the first district in Butler County to implement random drug testing for all non-teaching employees. And that decision revealed mixed feelings over drug testing: The Madison board itself was split, voting 3-2 to approve the program.
Why non-teaching staff? Madison's administrators, custodians, aides and cafeteria workers are not members of an organized bargaining unit, and thus the board can impose new requirements without consideration for the requirements of a union contract. Madison school board President Glenn Cappel, who advocated random testing for all non-union staffers, said he wants to bring drug testing to the bargaining table the next time a new contract is negotiated with teachers.
Similarly, when Edgewood school officials were selling the idea of random testing of students last year to parents, they were asked why teachers aren't tested, too. School officials indicated they would introduce drug testing as an issue during the next contract negotiations.
And Katie McNeil, a longtime member of the Middletown Board of Education and a member of the Butler Tech board, told staff writer Megan Gildow recently that she would support drug testing for school employees. "It's just part of doing business," she said.
Before some school districts start buying plastic cups in bulk, we'd suggest they take a deep breath and consider:
• Like it or not, the local teacher unions are not going to allow drug testing into their contracts unless school boards offer something — such as dollars and fringe benefits — in exchange. Most of the districts in Butler County are already running on tight budgets, and — aside from the expense of the tests themselves — the cost of "convincing" teachers to submit to drug tests may be too high. As Gildow has reported, the National Education Association, which includes the Ohio Education Association, has opposed employee drug testing for more than 20 years, saying it is "unprofessional, degrading, unnecessary, expensive, an invasion of privacy and unconstitutional."
• Does a drug problem actually exist with students and/or employees? Or are school boards following a conservative agenda that is mostly for show and intended to bring unions to heel? Last fall, Edgewood officials offered only anecdotal evidence of a drug problem before introducing random testing of students. We believe school districts should offer significant documentation — suspensions, disciplinary actions, arrests — to constituents when building a case for testing. If sufficient evidence exists of a drug problem, we think public support will follow.
• While we're not naive enough to believe that some teachers — like the rest of the population — don't have substance abuse problems, we trust that the majority of our educators are professionals who deserve to be trusted and respected.
• Madison Local Schools has also enrolled in the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation's Drug-Free Workplace Program which reasonably requires drug testing for new hires, for employees after accidents, and for employees actually suspected of abusing drugs. That approach, according to recent testimony in the Ohio Senate, can be implemented without negotiated contract changes and the bureau offers discounts on the costs to districts.
We can support that more reasonable approach — testing new hires, after accidents and on suspicion — and see it as a good compromise. But we strongly remind our elected boards that schools should be comfortable havens of learning, expression and free thinking, not paranoid places where everyone is suspected of wrongdoing until proven innocent. Let common sense guide these decisions.
Comments
By Jim
May 16, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
If you want the answer to why unions oppose the random testing, it is simple. Teachers do not have what a lot of people have: the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. People paint teachers with a broad brush like “teachers have gotten out of hand”. What does that mean? No responsible teacher would oppose testing for cause, but testing without cause is another presumption of guilt. Do you wonder why GOOD teachers are leaving? You shouldn’t. Where is the respect we had for them?
By Tamra
May 14, 2008 8:38 AM | Link to this
I DEFINITLEY think that drug testing of teachers/students is a great idea!!! Teachers have got out of hand these days…having sexual relationships and partying with students. The bad teachers have given the good ones a bad name! I wouldn’t want my child being taught by someone that was abusing drugs, and I would want to know if my child was also!!! Question…Why wouldn’t the teacher’s union agree with random drug testing…Is it because they know they would lose a few????
By ks
May 12, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this
Whether one considers data from the Depts. of Labor, Health & Human Services, National Traffic & Highway Safety, OSHA, DOT, OBWC, or private sector insurers, there is a pervasive substance abuse problem that cuts across social, economic, racial, vocational, generational and geographic strata. Some progressive unions that really want to protect their members and the public, endorse random testing (carpenters, iron workers and transit workers). They know random testing is a proven deterrent.
By VietVet
May 12, 2008 7:38 AM | Link to this
No,Jim,actually I’m just a regular old worker in a research lab, working for corporate America.Have been for 36+ years.Not very fond of management myself and not fond of greedy unions either.Actually, as it turns out,I’m probably more on your side than the employers. I said the employer holds the cards in negotiations.They have the power to shut the place down,rather than negotiate another contract. They have the power to downsize positions if they choose.Ask the AEIF about reasonable negotiatio
By Jim
May 12, 2008 7:03 AM | Link to this
Actually, the ignorance demonstrated is yours. This is not my union we are talking about. I merely point out that unions negotiate with employers all the time. For a person to suggest that these negotiations become a situation where the employer decides everything would remove the idea of negotiations altogether. Employers and unions should always engage in honest, fair, and reasonable negotiations. Or, are you the unreasonable employer?
By VietVet
May 11, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this
Jim-We in private indus. haven’t had a pay raise to”keep up with inflation” in over 20 years.Your union isn’t really expecting to receive a raise that kept up,are you?How naive.That stopped years ago.Everyone,no matter the vocation,is way behind on that.As to denying the union negotiations-no,I never said that.I think that’s your right.The employer ALWAYS hold the cards,no matter where you work,or what you do for a living.Teachers aren’t stupid,just out of touch with reality as you have demonstr
By Identify them
May 10, 2008 8:06 PM | Link to this
Several weeks ago, 2 illegals were killed in a fiery crash. Upon learning their TRUE identity, it was discovered that they were 21 & 22 year old adults, with cocaine & alcohol in their system, who also happened to be ILLEGAL ALIENS PRETENDING to be 15 - 16 year old students and were enrolled at a local Junior High school.
Random tests and identity checks should be the norm for the illegal alien students enrolled in public school.
By D H Johnson
May 9, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this
especially testing the employees and teachers is a good idea. the students are too numerous to check.
By D H Johnson
May 9, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this
especially testing the employees and teachers is a good idea. the students are too numerous to check.
By Jim
May 9, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this
I have it. You would deny teachers a chance to negotiate with a district. The district regularly holds all the cards. That’s why they can pay 200% of the price of a home and turn around and fall under the pressure of the teacher’s union to give them 2%. Yep, sounds like the teachers have the boards right where they want them. Wonder how much it would cost to give them a raise that keeps pace with inflation? Good thing teachers are too stupid to ask for more, huh?
By VietVet
May 9, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this
No Jim- The one way street I was referring to is that the teachers union usually insists that it’s their way or no way at all.That’s ONE WAY thinking. The OTHER way, Jim, is that the school board act like they have a backbone and resist the union insistance on having it their way or else. In other words, Jim, provide resistance against the union demands.That is negotiating BOTH ways. Got it, Jim??
By Jim
May 9, 2008 8:34 AM | Link to this
Amazingly enough, VietVet states that it’s not a one way street, and then proceeds to draw us a map of that very one way street.
By M
May 9, 2008 8:23 AM | Link to this
Do no re-negotiate with the teachers Union. These are professional salaried employees. Offer them their jobs in a take it or leave it style. They may as well be treated like the rest of us working salaried individuals.
By VietVet
May 9, 2008 6:36 AM | Link to this
Teachers union is wrong. Test them and make it a condition of continued employment. Private companies do this. The teachers union should not be the only source of contract negotiations.It’s not a one way street.The School Boards need to get a spine and start representing the taxpayer’s dollars much better than they have in the past. This idea of “give us more money and more benefits” from the union doesn’t cut it. No bargaining- you will be tested or you won’t be employed here- just that simple.