Do you support drug tests for students?

[melensdad]

There is a job drug testing thread and it got me thinking. I figured I'd start a new thread so as not to throw that thread off topic.

Do you support or oppose drug testing of MIDDLE SCHOOL and HIGH SCHOOL students and why?

DISCLOSURE: my wife is a teacher at a public high school. My daughter is a student at a private high school.

The public school does not drug test. My wife has students in class who have been convicted of selling drugs. It has a graduation rate of roughly 75%. About 1/2 of those go to college. This is a rural small town high school that is 98% white.

The private school drug tests every student AT LEAST one time each year and has a very strict policy, basically its 2 strikes and you are out. Test positive and you will be retested in exactly 100 days. Test positive a second time and you are gone. Period. Tuition at this school runs almost $10,000 per year. It is not refunded. It has a graduation rate of roughly 98%. It has a college acceptance rate of 98+%. Just about that many go to college. This is an urban mixed race high school that is approximately 45% white.

 

[phrozen5100]

I definitely do NOT support drug testing of students. I feel it is a waste of taxpayer dollars and an invasion of privacy, to some extent.

Clearly, in the case of the private school, the parents are more invested in their children. Drugs should not be blamed for the performance of the public school; it's all about responsible parenting.

 

[public servant]

They will likely be tested for employment in a few years...I have no problem with starting early.

 

[Benny]

No.

That crap would be too expensive if executed effectively and you can do "random"() drug tests because it would be fair to all students. If I went to a high school tomorrow, I could easily pick out students that definitely use(ie, the students that will be "randomly" tested), but no way could I pick out even close to the majority of them.

 

[melensdad]

I definitely do NOT support drug testing of students. I feel it is a waste of taxpayer dollars and an invasion of privacy, to some extent.

Clearly, in the case of the private school, the parents are more invested in their children. Drugs should not be blamed for the performance of the public school; it's all about responsible parenting.

If you could pull out the students who do drugs and remove them from influencing the non-using students, would it be reasonable to presume that those students who do not use drugs will be positively influenced because the negative influence is gone?

I know of MANY workplace examples where drug users were removed and the remaining employees actually thanked management for taking action. Why would a school environment be any different? Take out the drug users and leave the schools for those people who want to learn. The drug users would go to a special school where they would be counseled. After testing clean they could return to regular high school. Sadly most parents of drug users have NO CLUE their kids use drugs.

It may be 'expensive' to test kids, it may be a 'waste of tax dollars' but is not a wasted education even more expensive and even a bigger waste of tax dollars?

 

[phrozen5100]

What one must take into account is the general attitude held by an increasing number of kids. Many of them have grown up in households where goals and aspirations are neglected; they have no clear goals for the future and are not aware of the ramifications of the actions they take today. I know this because I've actually talked to troubled kids of the early high school age.

So you test them, they pop positive and get expelled. The punishment of expulsion can be gravely threatening to a career/goal oriented student, but it is meaningless if the student is unaware of the long term effects of such action.

Social cliques are much more commonplace in the high school environment, which makes the sphere of influence of drug users quite a bit more limited.

It all goes back to bad parenting, and much of this bad parenting seems to be the unfortunate product of children having children. I don't hold the solution, but I'm also confident it does not lie in drug testing.

 

[melensdad]

You and I agree that bad parenting is a problem.

But the fact that drug use by students is ALSO a problem but you suggest that ignorance is bliss and we should turn a blind eye to it despite the fact that some 50% of all high school seniors do drugs, 10% use viodin periodically, almost 20% use pot monthly, etc.

I'd have to argue to test the kids for several reasons. Schools that have adopted random student drug testing are hoping to decrease drug abuse among students via two routes. First, schools that conduct testing hope that random testing will serve as a deterrent, and give students a reason to resist peer pressure to take drugs. Secondly, drug testing can identify adolescents who have started using drugs so that interventions can occur early, or identify adolescents who already have drug problems, so they can be referred for treatment. Drug abuse not only interferes with a student's ability to learn, but it can also disrupt the teaching environment, affecting other students as well (something my wife can attest to).

 

[melensdad]

You and I agree that bad parenting is a problem.

But the fact that drug use by students is ALSO a problem but you suggest that ignorance is bliss and we should turn a blind eye to it despite the fact that some 50% of all high school seniors do drugs, 10% use viodin periodically, almost 20% use pot monthly, etc.

I'd have to argue to test the kids for several reasons. Schools that have adopted random student drug testing are hoping to decrease drug abuse among students via two routes. First, schools that conduct testing hope that random testing will serve as a deterrent, and give students a reason to resist peer pressure to take drugs. Secondly, drug testing can identify adolescents who have started using drugs so that interventions can occur early, or identify adolescents who already have drug problems, so they can be referred for treatment. Drug abuse not only interferes with a student's ability to learn, but it can also disrupt the teaching environment, affecting other students as well (something my wife can attest to).

 

[Benny]

If you could pull out the students who do drugs and remove them from influencing the non-using students, would it be reasonable to presume that those students who do not use drugs will be positively influenced because the negative influence is gone?

If you can be influenced to do drugs when you are 15+ years old(high school) then you are a lemming that will probably be influenced later in life with harsher consequences to all.

I can think of a recent example.

 

[public servant]

So you test them, they pop positive and get expelled. The punishment of expulsion can be gravely threatening to a career/goal oriented student, but it is meaningless if the student is unaware of the long term effects of such action.

Then you're just wasting each others time anyway. Drug test them all. The ones that fail the test are given the opportunity to change their ways through counseling and addiction intervention programs. If the refuse the help or fail to complete the programs or test positive again...kick them to the curb.

All they are doing by this point is using up valuable resources and energy that would best be funneled back into those that want to learn...drug free.

 

[Hammer]

I say no, and I do have a child in the school system. Kids will experiment with drugs and alcohol when they are young, its a fact of most of the students. Private schools as well. Why kick a kid out of school for a drug infraction and basically condemn them to a life without an education forcing them to resort to a life of crime and more drug use.

Now I am not saying allow them to be under the influence at school either.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Drug testing is a complete waste of tax payer money...schools are for educating, not policing.

 

[melensdad]

Drug testing is a complete waste of tax payer money...schools are for educating, not policing.

And how do you educate those that are under the influence of drugs?

Or how do you educate those that are distracted by the disruptive influence of those that are under the influence?

Or how do you even keep the teachers motivated if they are forced to deal with the ner'do'ells who occupy 20% of the space but create 80% of the problems? If teachers are not able to educate because they are stuck babysitting then maybe the schools better do some policing so the teachers can get back to the work of teaching?!?

 

[bigus_D]

Kick kids out of school for causing problems, not for what is in their blood. Testing of this sort is a clear invasion of privacy, and competely un-necessary in my opinion.

I could care less if the kid sitting next to mine was drunk or stoned or whatever... so long as when that kid causes a distruption, he/she is removed promptly.

Furthermore, urine tests will detect pot for up to a month after use. Cocaine only stays in the system for 2-3 days, Meth for only 3-6 days... These harder drugs metabolize much more quickly. Theoretically, all mandated urine tests do is encourage kids to use harder drugs in order to avoid detection. Just plain stupid.

Public schools should ABSOLUTELY NOT be allowed to randomly test all students. If they want to setup something where tests are mandated for those wanted additional priveledge (drive to school, participate in sports, etc.) I can almost understand that. I still disagree, but almost understand that position. Private schools, on the other hand, should be free do have whatever rules they want.

 

[spartan933]

I do, for student athletes.

 

[jrich2125]

What will the drug tests do once they find students using? If they are just going to slap them on the wrist and say you are suspended for x amount of time and must go to counselling? The problem seems to be deeper than that and I don't think random drug test's are the answer.

 

[infidel]

I don't support it because I don't believe it works. I knew quite a few kids that did drugs in high school, and more than a few of them got busted and NONE of them got expelled. They would get suspended a couple times for a few days or lose driving privileges to school for a month, but by the third time they would get tested they figured out ways to beat the test. What a waste of time and money.

 

[Fletch]

"Who better to do drugs than high school kids? What are you gonna f*** up that bad when you're 17 years old that you can't bounce right back from? What -- you're gonna get a F? Who gives a s***? You're not gonna forget your kids at daycare, and blow your mortgage payment, and shake the baby... do all that s*** when you're young and you can afford to miss."
-- Doug Stanhope

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0qJcGhmvqc[/ame]
[ame="http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=19417848"][/ame]

 

[misconfig]

As a former student of "Random" drug tests * funny how I always got picked *. I think it's a complete crock of ****.

Random drug testing is an invasion of privacy to begin with IMO, also if you test positive for Marijuana they send you to drug REHAB! Give me a break people.

Not to mention I never smoked pot in high school but since I was not the easiest going kid in school they still found ways to single me out of the crowd. Randomized my ***, the only thing random about that testing is the dates they decide to test.

 

[level.eleven]

Fletch, you beat me too it. I've been on a Stanhope kick this week.