Tell ya what, let's make EVERY government employee, congress, senate, W.H., FBI, EPA, IRS, et al, piss in a cup and fire ALL of them that fail on the spot. That outta take care of about half of the riff raff we have.
Bunch of hypocrites!
Posted on 03/19/2006 4:30:53 PM PST by Crackingham
We have checked out homeschooling but we found a private school that is great. Costs $2000/month for the 2 kids but I think it is better than homeschooling right now. I consider it, though, each year.
I just want my taxes back. I pay school taxes, the local school doesn't get it because we pulled our kids, where the hell does the money go !?!?
In theory I'd like to agree with you that drugs are a "parents" issue. Were it twenty years ago, I'd agree with you. But no more. Drugs are A MAJOR (albeit, illegal) BUSINESS industry. And it's been targeting younger and younger users (great repeat business, the stuff's addictive). Adult predators of the young need catching and halting, immediately. It's akin to halting a bad virus.
How are you on the subject of parents introducing their own children to drug-use?
Whatever traces of whatever substances in their bodies is not a matter of national security.
Public schools allow atheletes to perform on the field of play sometimes resulting in death and/or permanent crippling injuries. Meantime you want to test the kid to see if he smoked some pot the night before coming to algebra class...obviously in your totalitarian view endangering the lives of other students and severly effecting our national security.
Meantime, a muslim terrorist somewhere is busy planning death to America.
You need to get your priorities straight. Or are they for you already perfectly placed? Perhaps you are the terrorist planning my death by first going for the death of all our freedoms.
Wow. You are taking this discussion to personal levels. Are you a student in highschool?
Tell ya what, let's make EVERY government employee, congress, senate, W.H., FBI, EPA, IRS, et al, piss in a cup and fire ALL of them that fail on the spot. That outta take care of about half of the riff raff we have.
Bunch of hypocrites!
Which raises another question: Do you believe those without children should be paying taxes to support pub ed?
Well I don't think you could make an exception there. Then you'd have people who don't drive not wanting to pay taxes for roads, etc. Kind of a stretch, but I don't think it would work to try to parse things out like that.
"And since you agree that "Parents should be doing this job" then pub education should not be subsidized. I'm all for vouchers. You too?"
Hell YEAH!
How about testing every elected official?
End mandatory school at grade eight.
Anyone who wants to go, and is capable of passing, HS is welcome.
Let the rest take drugs on their own time.
What "proper intervention" has a sufficient track record of success to justify public funding to deploy it?
See, "pub ed" like ... "pub housing"... "pub medical" clinics MEANS something. It sure doesn't mean the thing is free. Or a PRIVATE institution. Any organization or institution taking ONE PENNY of federal dollars (in this case schools), you end up inviting Fed law INTO the situation. Therefore, it is NOT at all out of line for the Feds to be doing drug testing. They do the same at a number of "public" institutions. I don't get why the pro-drug people don't get this.
I am always on the lookout for the enemy within. When someone is a proponent of invasions of privacy, I put them on my person of interest list...til proven otherwise or they are elevated to a prime suspect.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Illinois School Board Journal
March/April 2005
Random drug testing:
Will it stand the test of time?
by Steven D. Rittenmeyer and Mathew J. O'Brien
Steven D. Rittenmeyer is a professor of educational leadership at Western Illinois University, Macomb, and formerly an attorney with the firm of Robbins, Schwartz, Nicholas, Lifton and Taylor. Mathew J. O'Brien is a graduate student in school psychology at WIU and a certified drug and alcohol rehabilitation counselor.
Editor's note: For the third time since 1995, the Illinois Association of School Boards has assisted researchers at Western Illinois University in studying student drug testing in Illinois. Results of the 2004 survey are available on the IASB Web site in either Word or Rich Text files at www.iasb.com/files/dsurvey.htm.
Among the hot-button student disciplinary issues that surfaced over the past decade, none strikes emotional chords as directly as random drug testing in public schools.
Perspectives on the need for, use of, and results from these procedures vary from district to district. But while there are still a large number of administrators, parents and communities who praise drug testing for "sending the right message about district values," research has shown that few school districts attempt to support these claims with evidence of drug testing effectiveness or benefits.
And without tracking the prevalence and frequency of illicit drug use among students, random drug testing may, in fact, undermine the very message these schools and communities hope to instill in students.
Results of the latest survey of Illinois school districts participating in drug testing programs support the use of caution in such claims.
This survey, conducted in early 2004, was very narrow in focus. It specifically targeted the 41 school districts that previously identified themselves in the 2000 study as conducting or considering drug testing programs. (Note: The 41 districts represented 8 percent of the 515 school districts that responded to the 2000 survey.)
This year's survey yielded a response rate of 76 percent, or 31 school districts. Of the respondents, 22 out of the 31 indicated they currently perform random drug tests on students. Two districts have abandoned the practice, and seven reported that they never began testing.
The 22 school districts currently conducting random drug testing programs were the selected sample for this study.
Since the 2000 survey, two significant developments have occurred. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court approved expansion of random drug testing beyond athletes to all extra curricular activities. The second came in 2003, when the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan released the most comprehensive study to date of the relationship between student drug use and testing.
After tracking tens of thousands of eighth-, 10th- and 12th-grade students in hundreds of schools nationwide for three years, researchers found that school drug testing "was not associated with either the prevalence or the frequency" of illicit drug use.
The study called for more inquiry into such things as cost-effectiveness, false positives and alienation of students. So how do these developments measure against practice and results in Illinois?
Programs and participants
Ten of the 21 districts that said they have been randomly testing students for illegal drugs have been doing so for between three and five years. Of the remainder, nine reported programs operating for five years or more; two have operated their programs for less than three years.
Among the students subject to random testing, seven districts tested students in any or all extra-curricular activities; six tested athletes only; three also tested students who drive to school; and one also tested students enrolled in courses that use power tools.
By grade, 16 districts tested students in grades 9 to12; four tested students in grades 6 to 12; and two tested students in grades 7 to 12.
In participating schools, three had enrollments of less than 300, 11 districts had 300 to 500 students, five had 500 to 800 students; one district had between 800 and 1,000 students and two had more than 1,000 students.
In test numbers, 18 of the 21 school districts said they had tested 200 or more students, or an average of 47 percent of the student population, during their programs.
Financial costs ranged as widely as enrollment sizes.
Seventeen districts reported paying on a per test basis, while four paid an agreed lump sum. One district used a combination of both plans. Prices per test ranged from $25 to $50 (61 percent); less than $25 (29 percent); more than $75 per test (one district). Of the four districts that paid via a negotiated lump sum, costs varied between $1,600 and $2,500 per year.
Program outcomes
A majority of districts reported a modest number of positive tests, ranging from 14 districts with zero to five positive test results, three districts with five to 10 positives, three districts with 10-25 positives and two with 25-50 positives.
Districts also were asked if they had ever had a preliminary positive test prove to be false. Two-thirds, or 15 districts, said they had no false positives, six had one or more and two reported five to 10 incorrect preliminary results.
A combination of disciplinary actions resulted from the positive tests.
Fourteen districts used a combination of actions, including parental notification, suspension from extra-curricular activities, and counseling or treatment. Three districts used suspension from school, three notified law enforcement and one reported expulsion from school.
Program evaluation, perceived benefits
What would really aid any count is evidence that these programs and actions work to curtail or prevent illegal drug use among students. Unfortunately, 19 of the 21 districts testing students had used no effort to track the rate of reported drug use. Among the four districts that did, three found that drug use had decreased; the other found no proof of any change.
At the same time, however, anecdotal comments from school administrators who completed the survey demonstrated a widely held belief that random drug testing worked and produced the desired benefits.
When asked if testing has reduced "the overall amount of drug abuse" or has reduced "the frequency with which some students abuse drugs," 10 respondents agreed. Eighteen agreed "testing has helped some students avoid starting on drugs," while 14 said "testing has caused some students to stop using drugs."
But the greatest perceived benefit, according to 20 of the responding school administrators, was the claim that "testing sends the right message about our district's values" among the general community, parents and guardians, faculty and staff.
The 2004 survey was the latest of three surveys conducted over the past decade. In 1995, about 1 percent of 866 Illinois school districts surveyed said they were actively engaged in random student drug testing. Five years later, 8 percent of that group (or 41 districts) had begun to test their students. In our latest findings, only 22 districts were still actively engaged in testing.
It is clear that the use of drug testing programs to control or reduce illegal drug use among students is waning. But because the relatively few districts that conduct tests are not tracking such drug use, there is no objective proof that testing works, or whether it is worth the time and expense.
Moreover, relying on anecdotal evidence from school officials or the community for random testing does nothing to reinforce any intended message to the most important audience — the students.
In a well-intentioned effort to protect youngsters by believing in and using a system of detection and deterrence, schools may be missing a significant opportunity to fine-tune that message.
The University of Michigan researchers found that the most credible indicators of student drug abuse are "personal attitudes and perceptions" of peer use. They suggest that a wiser course of action for schools is to invest more time and funds in addressing student attitudes, perceptions and values, rather than more testing kits.
Even some members of the U.S. Supreme Court, which since 1995 has agreed with and expanded random student drug testing, believe that a school's obligation to teach by example should "avoid symbolic measures that diminish constitutional protections."
It is imperative, therefore, for school boards and administrators to look at the effect and results, in addition to the costs and perceived benefits, of programs that can significantly impact students, schools and the community at large.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Takenomoron, I swear you can't EVER stoop any lower than you did the last time you were on the board, but you have done it again.
No drug testing for high schoolers? Is that what you REALLY want? High Schools can and should drug test children. They are there to learn and you won't do that if you are doped up. Again you've shown how little of a grasp you truly have on ANY subject, and although I doubt your comments will EVER get removed, it would be a nice change for you to actually KNOW what you are talking about before spouting off.
But, with this war on terror, the means and writ of homeland security -- I'd wager to say a "war on illegal drugs to children" stands a better chance at being halted at the source. That's where the real problem is. I don't personally like the drug tests but no thanks to those who DO TAKE DRUGS and commit bad actions, employers have had to try to fend in liability in hiring practices. Is in their fault. No. It's activist liberal courts who are at fault. They won't punish offenders, instead, as usual, the innocent pay the price.
Drug testing (which I do dislike) can and might lead to a body of data which therein stops a number of illegal operations here in the US. THAT's what works: going to the source.
Drug dealers have been targeting younger and younger "kids". Halt the source, the problems begin to dissipate. I consider this the ultimate best "interventionist" policy concerning this matter.
What rights, do you think, a student is losing in taking these random drug tests?
Are you high or did you simply fail your English classes?
Sorry America is lost on you. Your mindset would make the Founders kick your ass just for after school sport.
You probably like seat belt laws & helmet laws too, huh? And, your tone suggests you probably even believe smoking bans are okay on private property.
Cuba's nice this time of year. They gotta good baseball team. Wonder if they're drug tested?
For one thing, it doesn't work (see #32 above); for another, it is being pushed by the drug-testing industry - snake oil sold by a very corrupt industry (see datia.org), with tons of "lobbyists" in DC.
Bush is trying to help his old family friend John Walters, a bureaucrat who is having a hard time figuring out how to spend his multi-billion budget.
My guess is down a black hole. I am homeschooling my children and I'm in the same boat you are. Homeschooling costs are not deductible, unfortunately, any more than private school tuition is.
Oh, fine. Put an x by my name. I'm sure I'm in good company on that list... Do we get any perks for being on your "bad list"?
Raising kids to accept personal searches without question whether they be pissing in a cup or being inspected for their "safety" in a child seat on the side of the road, it instills in them a acceptance of always being taken care of by the nanny state.
After all if you grow up always allowing the state to inspect your person, home and fluids without question, you become a perfectly docile little subject.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.