Testing fails test: district rejects drug test

Unfair consequences due to false-positive tests and possible invasions of privacy are just some concerns District 95 raised when a random drug testing program was possibly going to be implemented at the high school. With drug testing becoming a more common procedure in high schools, these programs raise more questions among students and parents.
Although 18 percent of public schools have drug testing programs, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, people continue to misunderstand public schools’ rights to test students.

“The school right now can test you for drugs. They just need probable cause. If the school has a reasonable belief that you might be under the influence of alcohol or drugs, you can be tested. [They would test you] right then,” said Dan Fewkes, a District 95 parent who fought against implementing a drug testing program and Senior Legal Counsel for CVS Health in Northbrook.

A 2013 survey conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, (SAMHSA) found an increase in student drug use compared to past results. Two years prior to these results, District 95 was already taking action.

“There was a survey from the school district to the parents that asked a rather innocuous question about drug testing. I think a lot of people, like myself, not knowing whether or not the district was really wanting to impliment the drug testing [program], [thought] that’s a good idea,” said Fewkes, who originally supported random drug testing.

During the fall of 2011, the school board held meetings with the parents, faculty, and some students to discuss the topic. They found out that, according to law, public schools cannot regularly test all students. Fewkes found this unjust.

“You can only test students that are participating in extracurricular activities. The program that the school [put forward tested] athletes, people who were involved in other extracurricular activities, like clubs, and people who had [driving permits to park at the school]. That ended up being about half of the kids,” Fewkes said.

Having concerns about invading the student’s privacy, Fewkes began to believe that the program’s plan to grab students directly from their classes was not right either.

“The children were going to be gathered by having someone come get them from their class. They talked about it being a confidential process. There is no confidentiality to that,” Fewkes said.

With this knowledge, Fewkes reinforced his viewoint on the topic.

“The research on drug testing programs in high schools clearly showed they don’t stop kids from doing drugs,” Fewkes said.

Although Fewkes believes the program would not stop kids from doing drugs, the school thinks differently .

“Right now our code is if it’s your first offence then you’ll miss 50 percent of your performances or contests [for clubs and sports],” Rolly Vazquez, athletic director, said. “You can still practice and get ready, but you cannot perform in competitions. [You will also have] two months of social probation where you can’t go to dances and games but if you attend [a] program run by Ms. Belke, our SAP coordinator, then you can get 50 percent knocked down to 25.”

According to research by the National Institute on Drug Use, drug testing is mostly accurate, but false-positive tests are possible. That was one issue brought up during school board meetings and Fewkes believed it would be wrong topunish students who may have not done drugs.

“If a child in school doesn’t have the right to their own body, what are we teaching?” Fewkes said. “It ended up, for me, being something that had much less to do with drugs than it had to do with process and rights and freedoms.”

Still not convinced that the program would have a positive outcome like the school strived for, Fewkes researched more.

“I found some things that were very concerning to me on the issue of drug testing in high schools, and I took the position that I was not in favor of implementing the program,” Fewkes said. “This program, in my opinion, was trying to substitute randomness for a reason. I don’t believe randomness is a substitute for having a reason.”

Eventually another survey was put out with information covering the program.

“My understanding is that the first survey had results that were about seventy percent in favor of drug testing and the follow-up survey had results that were about seventy percent against drug testing [and implementing the program].” Fewkes said.

With more information going out to the people of District 95 through another survey, by this time students were becoming concerned as well as adults.

“Every athlete has to sign a pledge card saying that they won’t use drugs or alcohol. I think it would be unfair if certain people were chosen in certain sports, because it’s everyone’s responsibility [to follow rules],” said Josh Dyer, junior, who supports school-wide random drug testing.

Though Dyer is for drug testing, other students like Elizabeth Ossmann, junior and one that is against the program, believing that it is the student’s responsibility when it comes to handling drugs, Ossman also believes drug testing students could invade their personal privacy.

“I would feel singled out. I would feel awkward and embarrassed. Most of the time, people don’t care [when someone is called from class]. I mean kids are called out of the room all the time. I never really think twice about it. People are going to start wondering what’s going on and start asking questions. There’s [no] easy way to get the kid out of the[class],” Ossmann said.

An addirional concern Ossman and Fewkes share is how and what exactly the program would be testing.

“If they were testing urine, then they would do that by taking a child alone into a bathroom with a teacher. The child would have to stay there until they had produced a urine sample, even if they were missing classes,” Fewkes said. “If you were doing a hair test then it would tell whether someone had done drugs for a much longer period of time: 30 days or more,” Fewkes said.

Feeling that this could potentially invade students’ privacy, he wrote about these concerns and published his opinions in the Lake Zurich Courier. on the program.

“I ended up writing an Op-Ed piece for the newspaper on the idea ‘What are we teaching our kids?’ One of the things that we are teaching is about liberty and freedom and the right to privacy,” Fewkes said.

Considering himself “as against drugs as anyone you will ever find,” Fewkes still believes that there are better ways to deal with this issue, in fairer ways that would not interfere with invading student’s rights.