They just started this recently in my old school district. How do you feel about this? The school board said it is going to cost the school about 20,000 dollars for this. How do you feel about this and your tax dollars paying for it?
+++++++++++++++
08-04-02, 11:39 PM
DorianGreyed
I am assuming that, since your post is in Sports, that you mean testing athletes. Were I in high school when such testing started, I would have been against it, calling it unconstitutional, although I may have been swayed by the argument I now support, that high school sports are extra-curricular activities, hence privileges, not rights. For students to qualify for them, conditions must be met, such as grades better than required of the student body as a whole, conduct becoming representatives of the school, and no drug usage. While I am certainly no champion of decreased individual rights, the fact that adults are responsible for the welfare of children overrides such concerns. Not looking after the welfare of students could be construed as neglect. Faced with a choice of possibly violating students' rights or possibly endangering those same students, I choose the former. Those who would argue that students have the right to make their own decisions should save their arguments for the teen forum; such an argument rarely holds water with adults. There are many good reasons why children are required to attend school, one of which is to develop the ability to consistently make good decisions, which implies that the students do not yet have that ability.

08-05-02, 03:23 AM
MrSensitive
I support it for any private school that wishes to conduct drug testing- as I do with any private business.
Public schools use public funds. No one in the public arena has a right to know what any student has in their bodily fluids.
If we give the schools domain over urine for extracurricular activities, then wouldn't it be prudent to test all female athletes for pregnancy? After all, if a pregnant girl gets hit by a fast softball, it could kill the baby- and her as well.
Sex is as voluntary an activity as drug use.

Where do we draw the line? Someone taking a puff of pot and getting tackled? Someone taking an unborn child into the game and getting tackled?
Maybe we should be drug-testing the PTA as well.
What exactly is the purpose of drug testing anyway? To keep kids off drugs- or to keep kids off the costly extracurricular activities?

Mr(pee, T.A.)Sensitive

08-05-02, 11:21 AM
DorianGreyed
The analogy above, of course , does not hold true. Pregnancy is not usually a crime; drug use usually is. Voluntary activities are not at issue here; participating in activities that are not rights but privileges is. The connection cited above post (voluntary) has no bearing on this discussion. Please note that this is not drug testing of the entire student body, but only those engaged in privileged activities.
The question of where to draw the line is always raised, and the answer is often an easy one; the line is drawn where it makes sense to draw it. If one hasn't the sense to draw the line, step aside and allow those who have that sense to do so. In this case, there is no 'slippery slope.' Students engaged in illegal activities shouldn't have privileges extended to them. That seems to make sense and seems to be fairly simple to understand.
Testing the PTA might seem to some to be a logical next step, but it obviously isn't. Please note that the issue is testing students; the PTA is an organization of parents (the P part) and teachers (the T part).
(I feel foolish explaining the obvious, but it does seem necessary here.) The purpose of the drug testing under discussion is to prevent and curtail drug use. Think of it as negative reinforcement: "Use drugs, don't play." That seems to make more sense than a "Use Drugs, OK" approach.
If a school district wanted to keep kids off costly estracurricular activities, the easiest way is the way most do it; drop the activity. Many schools have been forced to use this simple method in the last few years. It really does cut down on the number of students engaged in those costly activities. Of course, the activities that are often the first to get cut are ones like band, orchestra, etc., ones not usually associated with high drug use. (Playing tuba really doesn't require steroid use.)

08-06-02, 04:58 AM
MrSensitive
Dorian,
I am of the opinion that a child's drug use is no business of the public school system, provided those drugs are not on school grounds, of course (being that it IS still a crime). I believe it is the business of the parents and the child.
I am sure this is a major point in which we differ. But I see your point that extracurricular activities aren't a mandate, and therefore a child is given a choice - drugs or football. So I can't really dispute the argument on the merit of personal choice.
I won't go into the legal aspects of drugs at this time, though I am certain that too is a major point in which we differ.

I believe that participation (or at least trying out for) public school activities IS a right, so long as the activity is offered to the student body. But there are prerequisites involved, like maintaining a good G.P.A. and being of relatively good health. I don't think drug use should be considered a factor, unless it is a performance-enhancing drug (i.e. steroids or PCP).
I don't think a kid who smoked a joint three weeks ago should be prevented from playing her violin in band.

The student's psychological problems of depression, inconfidence, escapism, are what lead to drug use. Drugs are illegal, true. But drug use is just a symptom.
These problems have been PROVEN to erode with participation in such activities as sports, music and theater. It may not get a person off drugs, but it gives them the tools with which to try. And every hour they're playing football or rehearsing a play is an hour they're learning a craft, building confidence and accumulating success and friendships - not hanging out with other drug-users.

It pains me that these activities can be a gateway to success and a drug-free life, yet the school system wants to withhold these activities from the students who need them the most.


Have you ever lifted a Tuba? I think it DOES require the use of steroids - AND free access to the weight room! smile

Mr(Booze on First?)Sensitive

08-06-02, 07:53 AM
DorianGreyed
Mr S - I agree with you on some points, and differ with you on others. I'll try to take them in the order in which they appear in your post.
If a student comes to school or a school event under the influence, there is a problem, not the least of which is the liability of the school in the event that student causes any harm to anyone or anything. None of the drugs with which I am familiar enhance judgement. (If you want, you can say that the drugs are still in the child's system, thus on school grounds.) Would you want a student to be taking the driving portion of Driver's Education while under the influence of some sort of mind-altering drug ? So what is in their system really is part of the taxpayer's concern. Remember, a student's behavior while at school or sponsored events is the business of that school, as well as the parents.
i don't know what we could disagree on concerning the legality of drugs. Illegal ones are illegal. Those not allowed by high school assiciations for use in activities are, by definition, 'illegal' for those activities. (This covers performance enhancing drugs in sports.) In some states, it is illegal for those under 18 to possess cigarettes; that makes possession illegal.
Participation in after-school activities (and trying out) is a privilege, as I see it, but, trying out is a right, so we more or less agree there. One of those conditions is usually not being involved in crimes.
I agree with you that a student who did some weed three weeks ago should not be penalized. What about 5 minutes ago ? A line must be drawn somewhere; I'll let you draw it, but be aware of what you said:
"The student's psychological problems of depression, inconfidence, escapism, are what lead to drug use. Drugs are illegal, true. But drug use is just a symptom.
These problems have been PROVEN to erode with participation in such activities as sports, music and theater. It may not get a person off drugs, but it gives them the tools with which to try. And every hour they're playing football or rehearsing a play is an hour they're learning a craft, building confidence and accumulating success and friendships - not hanging out with other drug-users.

It pains me that these activities can be a gateway to success and a drug-free life, yet the school system wants to withhold these activities from the students who need them the most."

All of that is very true, and that is one of the reasons that I am in favor of the testing. Further, you are exactly right about those students needing the benefits of these ectivities the most. But, surely you don't want the school to turn a blind eye to a student's problems. By testing, the school can offer more specific help than just the blanket "Just say No" pap that so many adults seem to think actually help. Here we differ. I feel, No, let me say it this way, I know that it is a function of the school to do something to keep/get children off drugs. The primary function of the public school system in the US is to produce graduates who can become productive members of society, who can make decisions using about life, theirs and the general public's, using reason and based on a foundation of knowledge about the various factors that make our country work. This is taught, and has been taughtfor many decades, in every teacher education program in every college in the US. Public schools are not merely the place that teaches kids math, English, and history, and they were never designed to be only that. Those who want only that for their children are free to go to private schools. But the schools have so much to offer students that can help them, but, as it it with all problems of this nature, the user must want to get help, must show some real intent to change. Isn't the offer of all that is good in these events ( and I know that all isn't good in many of these events, but that is another discussion.) an incentive for students to stay clean, at least for a while ?
In re-reading my earlier posts, I find the mood of what I said too ominous. I'm not necessarily saying that "One hit and you're out." There can be degrees of allowances, and each incident must be judged on its merits (or lack thereof), but with privileges come obligations. The sooner students learn that, the better off they will be. We are sending out far too many students who seem not to be aware of the consequences of their actions, and who are unwilling to accept the responsibility of those actions.
We both obviously have real concerns abvout what is happening in our schools, and both of us seem to have the same ends in mind.
And finally, No, not a tuba, a baritone. My son played it in marching band, and I had to carry it often. I don't know which of us was happier when Jazz band started and he could go back to the trombone. ( Yes, I know how lucky I am to have a great son. He just got a full ride to college...a music scholarship.)

08-13-02, 06:41 PM
DorianGreyed
cnn.com.ednews
The above link will take you to a CNN.com article regarding this issue. The article also refers to a 1995 US Supreme Court ruling which allows testing high school students for drus. (While I agree with the ruling, I'm not sure I like this Court being on my side. More than anytime I can remember, this court seems very political.)

09-13-02, 01:15 PM
Minnesota
.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,