A study at Columbia University reported that, "ssubstance abuse adds at least $41 billion dollars to the costs of elementary and secondary education in terms of special education, teacher turnover, truancy, property damage, injury, counseling, and other costs." Who in their right mind would want to spend 41 billion dollars for children and teenagers to do something illegal and something that's hurting themselves? Enforcing a policy where students need to be drug tested on occasion is a beneficial option for students to, in a way, be forced to stay clean.
It has also been reported that by the time that a class reaches their senior year in high school, more than one-third of the class have used or do use drugs. In one specific school, one third of students may not seem to be that high of a number, but if looked at in a broader view, one third of high school seniors throughout the country adds up to millions of teens. So many students have used and abused drugs, that a drug testing policy would only help the problem.
Some policies have students drug tested if they want to be a part of an extra-curricular program at the school they attend. This policy reduces the amount of athletes and students involved with the school's activities that do drugs. Drug testing has shown to keep students away from the drugs and in the activities their school provides. Drug testing these students is a good way to start a policy in the school, but a drug testing policy should be in place over all of the student body.
Drug testing policies not only keep kids away from illegal activity but also improve their academics at school too. It was shown that "80% (2002-2003 school year) and 79% (2003-2004 school year) of schools with random drug testing programs achieved scores higher than the state average on the mandated graduation test for grades 10-12." It is clear that students who attend schools with a random drug testing policy have better academic scores than those who don't. Doesn't it seem like a good idea not to spend 41 billion dollars on drugs and achieve better scores on nation wide tests than average?
Many may argue that drug testing is an invasion of the privacy of students. Schools would not be drug testing if they were simply wanting to invade the students privacy, but rather that the school is concerned for their student body's safety and well being.
In an article in a newspaper from Connecticut a parent, Mr. Katz, shared a story they had experienced sending their child to a high school with out a drug testing program. Mr. Katz stated, "My son Ian died September 10, 1996... student drug testing could have saved our son's life." another article from Alabama reported, "We have had only 6 positive test results since adding random drug testing... Some community members have asked me why don't we just stop the program. I responded: What, are you kidding? We've saved 6 kids, Even if we only save one more-- what's a child's life worth?" It is important to note that drug testing is not a way to infringe on a students privacy or their fourth amendment rights, it is solely a way to keep the students of America safe.
In the case ACLU, the strip search of student Savanna Redding, was ruled to be unacceptable of the school. In my opinion, since Redding was said to have sold her prescription strength ibuprofen, it was okay that when she did not admit to her wrong doings that the school could thereafter search her. The search dealt with a student who had allegedly sold drugs at school. Whether or not a school has a drug testing program, a student is not allowed to sell drugs, or anything for that matter, at school.
The case Rutherford v. Missouri was an extreme way of handling their program. I agree that it was a violation of the students fourth amendment rights because there was absolutely no reasonable cause that they would conduct the test. There must be a meaningful cause for a school to conduct a test as such.
No comments:
Post a Comment