March 8, 2012
Dear Principal Govea,
I’m am writing to follow up on the February 21 parent meeting regarding the random suspicionless drug testing program at St.
Michael’s High School.
On February 21, you told attendees that a parent
committee on drug testing would be put in place moving forward. I haven’t received any follow up notification
about the committee, nor have any other parents with whom I’ve discussed, and
it’s been nearly three weeks. I have the
following questions:
- When and how is the formation of that
committee going to be announced?
- To whom will the announcement be sent?
- When and where is the first meeting?
Many parents, including myself, were surprised to learn
at the February 21 meeting that a contract had already been signed with
Psychemedics and three SMHS staff had already been trained to collect hair
samples from our children. This was
particularly disturbing given the February 9 notification letter inviting
parents to the meeting to “learn more about this proposed process.” Many
parents expressed concern that SMHS had gone from zero to one hundred in a matter
of days, especially since you wrote in the notification letter that “we don’t
feel heavy drug use is widespread on our campus.” They also expressed that they felt bullied
and rushed. This has not been an
inclusive process. Parents have not been
given an opportunity to fully consider the potential effects of random drug
testing on their own children and the SMHS community.
The majority of adolescent health experts oppose random
suspicionless student drug testing and cite the broad body of research demonstrating
that it does not prevent or reduce drug
use among students. These experts,
many of whom have devoted their careers to combating adolescent alcohol and
drug use, agree that such policies can have unintended negative consequences. For example, some students may turn to more
dangerous drugs, alcohol or inhalants. The
accuracy and reliability of school-based drug testing programs is unknown, and
a false-positive drug test is a devastating accusation for an adolescent. Student drug testing programs interfere with
sound drug prevention, detection and treatment processes. Random drug testing may actually harm a
school’s legitimate interest in preventing adolescent substance abuse. These experts recommend education as the most
effective deterrent to drug use. I am
attaching two Amicus Briefs ( Attachment 1 | Attachment 2 | from these experts for your review. I am also forwarding to you via postal mail the
materials from a drug education program produced by the NM Drug Policy Alliance
with the help of Senator Bingaman and a U.S. Department of Justice grant, which
SMHS parents might want to consider. I
understand SMHS students receive formal drug awareness education only in their
9th grade health class.
Dr. George Elder, the salesman from Psychemedics, advised
parents during his half hour speech at the February 21 meeting that we should ignore the experts and the research, and
that we can’t really understand it.
I beg to differ. As
I’m sure do many other parents.
The claims and anecdotal stories of one drug testing
entrepreneur on the Psychemedics’ payroll have little or no weight against the opposition
of the American Academy of Pediatrics—approximately 60,000 pediatricians—to the
involuntary drug testing of adolescents.
They pale in light of the 83% of physicians (pediatrics, family
medicine, and adolescent medicine) in a 2006 national survey who disagreed with
drug testing in schools.
I understand that several parents have made thoughtful recommendations
regarding alternate approaches to random drug testing and that some have
offered compromises to the program; and I, for one, would very much like to
hear what they have to say, as I suspect would other parents. My husband offered an alternate solution to
you immediately following the meeting, as you might recall. I sincerely hope that the rush between the notification
about a “proposed” program and the unilateral
surprise announcement of the Psychemedics contract and training of SMHS staff,
along with the lack of follow up regarding the parent committee we were told
would be forthcoming, is not an attempt to censor parents.
With all due respect, I request that the SMHS administration
utilize the same efficiency —with which you contracted with Psychemedics Corporation
and trained your staff—to set up the first parent committee meeting. I also ask that SMHS postpone the
implementation of any suspicionless drug testing program for students until
parents have ample opportunity and a reasonable amount of time to learn, discuss
and make a decision.
As you will see from the two attached Amicus Briefs—teachers,
pediatricians, addiction specialists, and social workers are united in their
recognition that student drug testing policies are ineffective and run counter
to well-established principles of how educators and parents can best promote
healthy choices among adolescents.
SMHS parents need ample time to explore these
recommendations and others, to confer with their own medical providers, to talk
with their children, to discuss among themselves, and to have direct access to
the thoughtful ideas I understand many are bringing forward in the aftermath of
the February 21 meeting. Parents and
students were not afforded that respect or courtesy in the lightning quick round between February 9 and 21. Nor are we being afforded respect or courtesy
by the lack of follow up nearly three weeks after the meeting.
I continue, along with several other parents with whom
I’ve talked, to be perplexed by SMHS administration’s rush to adopt
suspicionless drug testing and to contract with Psychemedics, a corporation
that has spent thousands of dollars lobbying Washington DC over the course of
many years on, among other topics, the “Rulemaking process involving the use of alternative drug test technologies.” This
is particularly perplexing as you have told us yourself that heavy drug use is
not a widespread problem on our campus. It is also perplexing because of the documented
decline in drug and alcohol use among students nationwide.
Monitoring the Future, the preeminent national survey of
students which has been conducted since 1975 by the University of Michigan with
funding from the federal National Institute on Drug Abuse, shows that drug and
alcohol use is in decline. Another national survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) echoes the
downward trend. These studies cite that the
reasons for decreases in youth drug and alcohol use are nuanced and have myriad
causes, including social and cultural attitudes. The drug-testing pushers may try to take
credit, but this is simply not true. Findings of a 2006 report from the General Accounting Office to Congress (GAO) on the
effectiveness of the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP) $1.2 billion campaign that encouraged
youth to say no to drugs, especially
marijuana, resulted in “no significant favorable effects of campaign exposure
on marijuana initiation among non-drug-using youth or cessation and declining
use among prior marijuana users.” The
GAO study did find “significant unfavorable effects.” The more young people were exposed to the
anti-marijuana ads, the more likely they were to think that smoking pot was
normal. For girls aged twelve and a half
to thirteen, the ads actually prompted higher rates of initiation into
marijuana use. The GAO findings underscore
the warnings of adolescent health experts who cite among the unintended
negative consequences of random drug testing that some students may turn to
harsher drugs, alcohol or inhalants as a result.
Many SMHS parents make many sacrifices to send their
children to St. Mike’s. Some of our
families have been in this community for generations. My children’s dad attended SMHS. Many of my children’s aunts and uncles
attended SMHS. And many of their cousins
attend SMHS. While school
administrations change, the enduring constant is our community. Per Drug Policy Alliance reports, dozens of
schools from Texas to Wisconsin to Virginia have tried and then abandoned
testing programs because of cost, ineffectiveness, flagging support from school
officials, or a combination of these and other concerns. While some Lasallian schools have indeed
adopted random drug testing as you and Psychemedics’ Dr. George Elder have been
quick to point out, only 19% of all schools in the U.S. – both public and
private – drug test students without cause.
Psychemedics and other drug testing companies sell testing as necessary
for a safe learning environment, embraced by students as an excuse to resist peer
pressure to use drugs and alcohol, and also as a strictly confidential process
with zero false positive test results.
But the reality of drug testing and its consequences often do not match
what the sales pitch promises. It’s no
small wonder that Dr. Elder advised parents to ignore the research.
Proponents of random, suspicionless drug testing seek to
bring the policing and practices of the juvenile justice system directly into
our small SMHS community, without compelling cause, motivated by a corporate
interest that flagrantly disregards medical expertise and evidence-based
research. Our students should not be
subject to a punitive, surprise lockdown to satisfy corporate greed or to
appease those who “hope” and “believe” that drug testing can deliver what
adolescent health experts clearly state it cannot. As a parent and member of this community, I reserve
the right to have ample time to consider this program fully and to hear
firsthand the thoughtful alternatives and compromises that many parents are
proposing. I encourage other parents to
reserve this right as well.
I look forward to the timely announcement of the first
meeting of the parent committee. And, I
look forward to joining the committee—as a mother of two teenagers who love
SMHS, and, as one voice among the voices of many parents, whether they are opposed
to, for, or still undecided, about drug testing.
As I heard one parent say recently, this conversation has
not even begun.
Sincerely,
Attachments
Attachment 1
APPLICATION
OF THE CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,CALIFORNIA DISTRICT OF THE AMERICAN
ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF ADDICTION MEDICINE, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION-NORTH,
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF
ADDICTION
PSYCHIATRY, AND THE CENTER FOR GENDER AND JUSTICE FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICI
CURIAE AND BRIEF AMICI CURIAE
Attachment 2
Brief of Amici Curiae American Academy of Pediatrics, National
Education Association, American Public Health Association, National Association
of Social Workers, NASW-Oklahoma Chapter, National Council on Alcoholism and
Drug Dependence, Center for Law and Education, Loyola Child Law Center, and
Lawyers for Children, Inc.
