A new high stakes test: Woodward Academy will screen its students for drugs. Good idea for all schools?
Several Woodward Academy parents sent me notes a few weeks ago about a surprising letter that came home from the College Park private school announcing that students will be subjected to random drug tests starting in fall of 2013.
Those parents were not happy about the plan to test randomly selected students. Many private schools around the country test their students for drugs, although there is debate over the efficacy of such policies.
One Woodward parent wrote: “I’m completely opposed to the school’s decision…It’s interesting to note that all studies conducted in regards to student drug testing indicate that these programs are ineffective at reducing drug use.” Another told me: “I am considering other schools for my son next year.”
I went to the National Institute on Drug Abuse web site for background on student drug testing and found this question and answer:
What has research determined about the utility of random drug tests in schools?
There is not very much research in this area, and the early research shows mixed results. A study published in 2007 (Goldberg et al, J. Adolesc Health, 41: 421-29, 2007) found that student athletes who participated in randomized drug testing had overall rates of drug use similar to students who did not take part in the program, and in fact some indicators of future drug abuse increased among those participating in the drug testing program. Because of the limited number of studies on this topic more research is warranted.
In 2011, researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania found that male students in high schools that drug test report no less recent use of alcohol, marijuana, or cigarettes than peers in schools that don’t test. However, the study found that drug testing could be effective with female students, but only in schools “that have good social climates, where the students and adults respect each other and the rules of the school are clear and enforced fairly.”
At the time, study co-author Dan Romer, director of the Adolescent and Health Communication Institutes of APPC, said, “This study sends a cautionary note to the estimated 20 percent or more of high schools that have joined the drug testing bandwagon. We find little evidence that this approach to minimizing teen drug use is having the deterrent effect its proponents claim. And only in schools that have a very good school climate, reported by about a third of students, does this intervention exert a protective influence on adolescent girls. Schools that have joined the rush to implement testing should ask themselves whether this strategy has been oversold.”
If Woodward students fail their first urine test, they won’t be kicked out of the school. However, a second positive test for drugs will lead to the child’s withdrawal or dismissal from the school, according to the AJC story. In the story , the school says most parents are pleased with the policy.
If you were a parent, how would this decision sit with you?
Here is an excerpt of the AJC story on Woodward:
The elite private school where tuition is $21,950 a year will start random drug testing students in grades nine through 12 next fall. School President Stuart Gulley said the testing will be done not because there’s hard evidence of drug abuse at the school but because of a “large number of anecdotal accounts of drug use not just at Woodward, but throughout metro Atlanta.”
Students will be randomly selected and tested. The goal is to test 40 percent of the approximately 1,000 students at the academy’s high school level by the end of the year. Teachers and administrators — including Gulley — will also be randomly tested.
“There’s certainly the impulse to be aggressive about this,” said Paul Bianchi, the headmaster at the Paideia School, which instead of testing for drugs focuses on drug education. “But I think [random drug tests] create too much of an adversarial relationship in the school between adults and students.”
Woodward has no hard evidence of growing drug use by students, said Gulley, who can only remember two confirmed cases of students abusing drugs in his four years there. Still, parents have “overwhelmingly” embraced the testing plan, he said.
Suzy Ellis is one of them. “It gives students another opportunity to say ‘no’ to the peer pressure around them these days to do drugs,” said Ellis, whose daughter is a senior at the school. “They can say ‘no’ because my school tests for drugs and my parents might find out.”
Woodward says about half a dozen parents, such as Boyd Johnson, have questioned the testing. Johnson calls it an intrusion on “personal privacy rights and the parental role.”
“It’s almost guilty until proven innocent,” he said. “I think the school needs to be teaching the importance of privacy rights instead of having random drug testing.”
The tests, which will detect illegal and prescription drugs but not alcohol, will be administered about every two weeks. The results will be reported only to parents and the school’s administration.
Wesleyan Athletic Director Marc Khedouri adopted the random testing policy at the school when he was dean of students. He said it has reduced drug problems at Wesleyan and not hurt enrollment.
“We’ve probably talked to five or six other schools that are in the process of considering adopting a random testing policy,” he said. “Woodward isn’t the only one. There will be others.”
Like Paideia, some other private schools — including the Lovett School and Holy Innocents’ Episcopal School — are stressing drug education over testing.
The schools only test a student if there’s a strong suspicion that he has used drugs. “You’re not educating the student’s best self” when he is taking drugs, said Bianchi, Paideia’s headmaster. “… That’s part of the deal that you’re going to try hard and grow, academically and in personal ways. If you’re under the influence … not everyone is entering into a clear-minded contract.”
The American Civil Liberties Union has successfully sued public school districts in state and federal courts for violating students’ civil rights through random drug testing. Public schools now have to prove that drug use is a danger to students before testing them.
–From Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
122 comments Add your comment
FBT
October 1st, 2012
10:55 pm
I personally don’t like the idea of schools testing students for drugs, but it’s a private school and has every right to test.
I don’t think referring to the school as elite or disclosing the annual tuition has any relevance to the story.
Woodward Dad
October 1st, 2012
11:10 pm
As a Woodward parent with both a boy and girl, I wholeheartedly endorse the new random drug testing policy. Unfortunately, drug misuse, whether prescription or illegal, is a national problem. Just look at the celebrities and national figures who have become addicted to legally prescribed medications that are in many families medicine cabinets today. Our young adults need to understand that if they hope to get a job after school they will probably have to pass a drug test with a potential employer. Passing a drug test is almost mandatory for any job today, even working in a fast food restaurant. The ability to say “No, my school randomly tests for drugs” is a powerful tool to help children avoid peer pressure. And as your story noted, any Woodward student who fails a drug test will get professional help and not be removed from school for the first offense. That is a constructive use of random testing which may help those children with their problem who don’t know how to ask for help. After all, they are still our children. I comment Dr. Gulley and the leadership staff at Woodward Academy for their strong leadership in this endeavor.
Atlanta Mom
October 1st, 2012
11:11 pm
My husband and I both oppose random drug testing, but we come at it from different ends of the spectrum. I oppose all random testing, because I think there should be some reason for an indivdual to be tested. My husband opposes testing because he doesn’t think it will be random at all.
Atlanta Mom
October 1st, 2012
11:15 pm
” However, a second positive test for drugs will lead to the child’s withdrawal or dismissal from the school”
And guess where those students end up–back in the public schools, because they have to take everyone.
Jim Chaput
October 1st, 2012
11:26 pm
By their own admission, drugs are not a problem at Woodward, so what will this testing program accomplish? I would pull my kid would be out of there when they handed out the first pee cup.
Catholic School Parent - KUDOS TO WOODWARD!
October 1st, 2012
11:48 pm
How is drug testing in a private school environment attempting to enforce a culture of high personal character an intrusion of civil rights? Good grief. Newsflash to the handful of parents opposing this at Woodward – it is a private school and the policy is one that will help you in your parental role. And if you don’t like it, you have a choice – spend your tuition dollars elsewhere or put them in the public schools down there where you’ll see firsthand what a “Civil Rights” type drug policy does for a school
. NOTHING.
crankee-yankee
October 2nd, 2012
12:13 am
“large number of anecdotal accounts of drug use not just at Woodward, but throughout metro Atlanta.”
I heard there might be drug use in the city of Atlanta so I’m going to assume my students are in the middle of it. Lame reason in my book. Private schools can do what they want, be upfront about it…
bootney farnsworth
October 2nd, 2012
1:42 am
not without reasonable suspicion, hell no.
I would tell a child in my care to politely refuse, and if the school has an issue to call me
bootney farnsworth
October 2nd, 2012
1:44 am
what the hell…its only civil rights.
not like they’re of much use lately.
bootney farnsworth
October 2nd, 2012
1:47 am
can’t help but wonder if Woodward Dad will be so gung ho when his kid actually has to piss in a cup for no good damn reason.
BehindEnemyLines
October 2nd, 2012
2:02 am
I applaud the Woodward Academy administration for taking a proactive step. Hope to my son’s school follow suit.
jw
October 2nd, 2012
3:29 am
Mr. Johnson hit the nail on the head, it’s yet another intrusion on personal privacy and the rights of parents. Let’s add nanny school to nanny state. I get that they are a private school, but I think Paideia, Lovett and Holy Innocents have it right in emphasizing education about drug use/abuse.
Striking Woodward off our list for HS unless this policy changes. Very sad about that.
dubious
October 2nd, 2012
6:22 am
Not only is it intrusive and insulting to students to presume guilt, it also doesn’t reduce drug use. It might seem counter intuitive, but while the message the school wants to send is “Don’t do drugs, You might get caught,” the message the student hears is “Everybody is doing drugs. How bad can they be?” When you randomly test students without cause, you send them the message that drug use is very common and everyone is doing it. You actually encourage drug experimentation.
Woodward won’t be testing for alcohol, they are ignoring the substance most commonly abused by teens.
Given that there is no evidence that random testing reduces drug use, and it clearly creates an adversarial relationship between students and the school, I don’t see any upside to this policy. A private school can do what it wants, but I wouldn’t send my kid there. Not because of the drug testing, but because of what this policy reveals about the decision making process at the school.
bootney farnsworth
October 2nd, 2012
6:24 am
pre marital sex is a big issue locally. as a preventative, Woodword should force every girl on the pill and require a DNA sample from every boy.
just in case. its a problem, after all.
a reader
October 2nd, 2012
6:39 am
How does this policy (and a potential positive result) work with the new state law that is now requiring all schools (including privates) to report alcohol and drug violations to the state via the school district the child lives in?
Yes, that’s right – we got a letter from child’s school saying they are no longer permitted to discipline in house. If a child has an alcohol violoation and lives in, say, Cobb county, they are now required to also notify Cobb county schools which will notify the state / DDS.
Why did no one hear of this law when it was being proposed / passed? Why can’t private schools continue to police in-house? Want to bet that the good privates do report all violations and the publics only report some kids?
John Konop
October 2nd, 2012
6:42 am
This is a very gray issue. In New York they are given out free contraception in high risk high schools. Obviously issues like drugs and teenage pregnancy can be very difficult weight put on a teenager. Yet as a parent how far should a public school go without parental permission? As a private school you have a choice, but in public school most cannot afford to just move their kid to a private school if they do not like the policy.
The second part is how we deal with youthful mistakes. It seems we are way to quick to punish over treatment. At the end is not a drug issue a health issue? As a society we have put major hurdles on kids via crimalizing over treatment. This has had the biggest impact on kids who parents cannot afford the justice system ie lawyers, rehab……..And at the end we all pay via destroying the kids future ie prison, welfare…….
T
October 2nd, 2012
7:06 am
When there is a question like this I default to liberty. I am against any form of drugs testing. If a teacher or school administrator cannot see that a student has a drug or alcohol problem by their behavior there is not a problem. I went to college with a person that had been in a overly protective school setting like this. With the first taste of freedom, came a massive drug and alcohol problem. Let kids live their lives without an overly busybody administrator looking over their shoulders.
Fred ™
October 2nd, 2012
7:07 am
Many employers require drug testing. The military requires it. You people yelling civil rights are morons. Woodward is a PRIVATE school. You don’t like the policy? Don’t send your kids there. We won’t miss them.
Reality
October 2nd, 2012
7:30 am
What’s your concerns. This is preparing your kids for the real world. I have been subject to at random drug testing in the work place since 1989. It has made for a safer place to work and a safer enviroment for customer and clients. Do you want you doctor, aircraft mechanic, elevator rapairman, pilot, nurse, bus driver, to be a drug user? Of course you don’t. All employers do at least a prehire test. What would you rather have, finding out your child has an issue with drugs at a young age when you can have more of an impact with help, or find out when they are older, they can’t get a job or keep one because of a drug problem. The schools that do this should have rehab programs in place for people that can’t pass to get them the help they need. If we don’t start there with testing we will end up with more people sucking off of the goverment for benefits because they can’t keep a job.
teacher&mom
October 2nd, 2012
7:54 am
There are public school districts that randomly drug test their high school students.
Really
October 2nd, 2012
8:19 am
I went to private school where they did this. It was a total waste of effort I thought. It too a lot of focus off education. We had half the “popular kids” in trouble after music midtown one year, making the class rooms empty. Schools do not get involved in the social aspects of teenage life. Every time someone failed it was for marijuana. You would think kids would steer away from it, but actually it made the punishment a badge of honor, compared to my sisters public school was all underground and hush hush. A lot of the teachers tend to sink down to the immaturity of the teenagers when this happens. Where I work now we randomly drug test, its totally different making a youthful mistake. This needs to be a parents issue not a school issue.
FYI A basic urine test will not pick up on the harder drugs such as pills, heroin and meth. The only thing that you are really testing for is pot and cocaine unless they really shell out some money.
PS The kids who failed the test became successful at life and the kids who passed became successful at life.
Rick C
October 2nd, 2012
8:31 am
Woodward Dad, let’s be real here. If any drug tests come back positive, the vast majority will be for cannabis. Opiates and benzos are usually out of the system in a few days. Smoke weed once or twice though, and it can be in your system for weeks or longer.
Reality, obviously I’m sure we’d all agree that people in those professions need to be sober at work. But what they do on their own time is no concern of mine.
Woodward Dad
October 2nd, 2012
8:32 am
Farnsworth,
I don’t mind if my child is randomly asked to fill up a cup. My employer had me do it and also ran a credit check on me too. I agree that a lot of our rights have been restricted but it’s because others have not acted responsibly. I always drive at or below the speed limit. My kids ask “Why so slow” since everyone else is passing me? But whenever we come to a trooper everyone slams on brakes, except me. I tell my kids if you obey the rules you have nothing to fear. The same goes for drug testing.
We live in a nation of laws and rules. Our society seems to have become even more segregated today between those who follow the rules and those who believe their rights are being compromised if they have to follow them. Public obsenity, illegal drug use, poor work ethic, lack of respect for others, etc. have all been tolerated on the presumption people’s “rights” are being denied if they can’t act as they choose. The attitude that we can do as we please without consequences or only obey the rules that suit us is what’s tearing at our national fabric. Telling a child they should refuse a random drug test by an adult we have charged with their protection is an afront to authority and isn’t a trait I want instilled in either my son or daughter.
If following the rules and wanting your child’s education to be offered in a safe, professional manner is not to you liking then Woodward Academy is probably not the place for you. But if you want a school that encourages individual responsibility, is academicly challenging and teachs respect for yourself and others then you should consider Woodward.
Entitlement Society
October 2nd, 2012
8:35 am
As a fellow private school parent (not Woodward), amen Woodward Dad! Well said!!
Rick C
October 2nd, 2012
8:37 am
How is forcing random drug testing “encouraging individual responsibility?”
Head Scratcher
October 2nd, 2012
8:41 am
This is more of the ‘Tried and Not-so-True . . . War on drugs’ thinking. Look for the reasons that people and little people use drugs. Get them help. Educate them and their families. But penalizing them with dismissal from this fine school is not the answer.
Wolves Mom
October 2nd, 2012
8:46 am
Great idea. Both of my kids work for companies that drug test. Welcome to the real world. These parents are investing a huge amount of money in their childs education and want some return on their money.
Head Scratcher
October 2nd, 2012
8:49 am
@Woodward Dad,
Your points are all valid. I’d just say that there is quite a difference between ‘encouraging individual responsibility’ and cramming adulthood down the throats of young people. They are still at the age where they should have the ability to screw up and have responsible adults get them back on track. Drug use, illegal or legal, doesn’t make you the scum of the earth. You either like to get high or you’re looking for an outlet of some sort.
It really becomes a problem when you resort to doing illegal things to support the addiction. Most of these kids who get high are doing so at their parents expense or helping themselves to the medicine cabinets at home. None of which should result in dismissal from school.
a reader
October 2nd, 2012
8:52 am
Again, I ask, how will this work with the new (required) reporting in GA? Will a single positive private school drug test be requried to be reported to the state? That’s my problem with this – it’s not just an in-house thing anymore that a parent is choosing. The state is getting involved too.
Maureen Downey
October 2nd, 2012
9:02 am
@To all, Had more time this morning to look at research on this and found this study:
Fred ™
October 2nd, 2012
9:07 am
Good. I have a daughter lol.
AlreadySheared
October 2nd, 2012
9:18 am
1) Good idea – test away. Oddly, the people who decry this as an invasion of privacy would likely also be the first people to tell you that adolescent brains are not fully formed, people don’t reach full cognitive maturity until around age 25, and so we need to temper our responses teenage misconduct.
If that’s so, let’s help these immature minds make a correct decision about substance abuse now by helping them understand that there may be consequences to their actions because they may be caught.
2) Any student who passes a random drug test has been, in effect, falsely accused. He or she should be entitled to liquidated damages of say, $20 (or maybe $50 – it’s private school & these are spoiled rich kids). Then the innocent would be lining up for a drug test; only the guilty would have anything to fear.
Aquagirl
October 2nd, 2012
9:32 am
A home testing kit is what…$25? You can test your kid on a Sunday night after they’ve been out all weekend and you won’t disrupt their school day.
Parents who want the school to handle this for them are either lazy or too concerned about being their child’s buddy.
Tychus Findlay
October 2nd, 2012
9:33 am
It’s a private school and they are entitled to enforce any policy they so choose since attendance is by choice.
In a public school environment, this is unconstitutional.
Woodward Dad
October 2nd, 2012
9:40 am
Two points of clarification. The Woodward policy is NOT to remove the child from school on the first offense but to get them professional help. This is not turning your back on the child but reaching out to help them. We all make mistakes. With help and understanding, we try not to make them again. Woodward’s policy tries to do just that.
Second, “a reader” asked if this information has to be reported to law enforcement. Good question. I am not a lawyer but I found Ga Code Section 20-2-1184 that requires notification of local law enforcement if a public or private school believes any illegal action involving the use marijuana or a controlled substance was committed on school property (along with a list of other illegal activities as well). If an administrator has any “reasonable cause to believe” a student is using drugs “upon school property or at any school function” they have to report them under existing Georgia law. So with or without the random drug test, any public or private school would have to report a student if there was a reasonable cause to believe the use was on school property. Good catch.
AngryRedMarsWoman
October 2nd, 2012
9:43 am
My son attends a private high school that does not have random drug testing – I would be very vocal in my opposition if they proposed it. Bottom line for me is that random testing is lazy, and I don’t pay $20k per year for lazy. With a student:teacher ratio of 6:1 I expect the teachers and admin to be “present” and know all of these kids well enough to see even the slightest evidence of drug use and then test on that suspicion with my input. Woodward is a much bigger school (1,000+ high schoolers), so maybe they need to test randomly – in our school, with 10-12 kids in a classroom, a teacher who can’t pick up on things (eg drug use, depression, violence, etc) needs to go elsewhere.
Centrist
October 2nd, 2012
9:45 am
Obvious that this biased piece opposes random drug testing – two parent opposition quotes, and nobody supporting it.
And what’s up with a parent who is now considering another school for her son over this single minor issue? Is she pro drug use for her son and doesn’t want him caught?
what's best for kids???
October 2nd, 2012
9:55 am
Mine are in public school, but I will be doing my own random drug tests on my children…a lot of random drug tests.
Woodward is a private school. If I could afford it, I would love for my children to attend. If the policy is drug tests, then the policy is drug tests. If the parents are so against it, they can send their children elsewhere.
Woodward Dad
October 2nd, 2012
10:04 am
Maureen,
Your study hit the nail squarely on the head. You said the program works for girls in schools “that have good social climates, where the students and adults respect each other and the rules of the school are clear and enforced fairly.”
Woodward Academy requires every student, and parent, to sign annually a Code of Conduct for attending Woodward Academy. I suspect many other private schools do as well. There are rules, they are very public, and are enforced fairly. It is just the same as when I attended DeKalb County schools in the 50’s and 60’s. Shirt tails in, no blue jeans, clean hair cuts, no profanity and appropriate dress length for girls. How things have changed.
Will random drug testing stop children from experimenting with drugs? No. But it can make the school environment better for all students so they can do what they are supposed to do in school: get a quality education.
Spartacus
October 2nd, 2012
10:04 am
No problem here. For those who have a problem, pull your kid out of Woodward or don’t apply there. There’s 20 kids in line behind you ready to take your spot. If Woodward has problems filling their school b/c of this new policy, I’m sure the policy will change quickly. Somehow, I think that will happen when the sun no longer shines……
John Konop
October 2nd, 2012
10:09 am
……..Second, “a reader” asked if this information has to be reported to law enforcement. Good question. I am not a lawyer but I found Ga Code Section 20-2-1184 that requires notification of local law enforcement if a public or private school believes any illegal action involving the use marijuana or a controlled substance was committed on school property (along with a list of other illegal activities as well). If an administrator has any “reasonable cause to believe” a student is using drugs “upon school property or at any school function” they have to report them under existing Georgia law. So with or without the random drug test, any public or private school would have to report a student if there was a reasonable cause to believe the use was on school property. Good catch……….
In all due respect this is a problem, the criminalization of health issues. This is especially hard on families with lower incomes that cannot afford……………
concernedmom30329
October 2nd, 2012
10:17 am
The point is missed here. Enrolling your child at Woodward is a choice. Just like all private schools, they are selling a product. You either buy it as is or you don’t. At the end of the day, for some parents such a policy be a negative, but that is how the free market works.
By the way, this is why vouchers will never really work. Parents who use them would expect the government to intervene in decisions like this.
Inman Parker
October 2nd, 2012
10:32 am
But you see, Woodward is a private school so parents can vote with their feet. If they don’t like the rule, there is a nice, drug infested public school right down the street.
AngryRedMarsWoman
October 2nd, 2012
10:37 am
Let’s try this again…my last post must have wound up in the black hole. My son attends a private school that does not randomly test – I would be very vocal in my opposition if the school proposed it. The bottom line for me is that random testing is lazy, and I don’t spend $20k per year for lazy. I pay for a student:teacher ratio of 6:1 and expect the adults in the school to be “present” and really know each one of these kids and be able to pick up on evidence of drug use or other problems. With 10-12 kids in a classroom any teacher who does not (or can not) notice when a kid is on drugs (or depressed, or in an abusive relationship, etc) and do something about it (with my input) needs to move on or be moved out. Woodward is a bigger school (with 1,000+ in the high school), so maybe they can’t keep such a close eye on every single child – I expect more from my school and the adults in it. We too sign all sorts of pledges – from honor code to parents agreeing not to allow wild parties – random testing goes too far in my humble opinion. Just my $0.02.
Atlanta Mom
October 2nd, 2012
10:42 am
I agree with Aqua Girl. If parents think this is such a good idea–do it in the privacy of your own home. Or is that too hard?
I also agree with everyone who says Woodward is a private school and can have whatever rules it likes. But then I wonder, are you teaching your children to follow the rules–no matter what?
YALLOweMe
October 2nd, 2012
10:50 am
Most comment makers here don’t have children at Woodward. Why do you care? It’s a private school and it’s none of your business if your children don’t go there. Y’all libs always want to meddle in other people’s business.
John Konop
October 2nd, 2012
10:55 am
….Most comment makers here don’t have children at Woodward. Why do you care? It’s a private school and it’s none of your business if your children don’t go there. Y’all libs always want to meddle in other people’s business….
Did you even read the title ie “ALL SCHOOLS”?
….A new high stakes test: Woodward Academy will screen its students for drugs. Good idea for all schools?….
YALLOweMe
October 2nd, 2012
10:59 am
A very interesting opposition indeed. Many k-12 private schools in metro Atlanta have implemented this random drug test policy and parents have to sign a contract before enrolling their children. I personally have no objections to this contract. There were maybe two parents in our school who are vehemently against it. For all you private school parents out there, see if you can find a common thread of these oppossing parents. In our case, their children are atheletes (not the best ones, though) in our high school.
Centrist
October 2nd, 2012
10:59 am
If Woodward made it’s decisions based on the AJC, Maureen Downey, and the majority of liberal readership sensibilities – they would not have implemented this new policy.
But they don’t.
The tag question above in the headline is “Good idea for all schools?” Probably not worth the expense of litigation when civil rights groups and parents of suspended students sued. But it would be a deterrent, and trigger help for those troubled teens whose parents cared.
The military and many, many companies care – and they don’t hire and weed out the abusers. It would be logical to deter and catch some early for some intervention, but logic is often trumped by our legal system.
Woodward Dad
October 2nd, 2012
11:03 am
Atlanta mom,
Yes, I am teaching my children to follow the rules whether they like them or not. And for rules they don’t like, I hope I am teaching them to work to change them. How do you change rules or laws you don’t like? By building consensus through persuasion, logic, education and/or good common sense.
Just because Woodward does random testing doesn’t mean I will not test at home. It’s my responsibility to protect my children, whether at home or in school for the 8-10 hours a day they are not under my direct supervision. I appreciate Woodward’s random drug testing, having sports trainers on the field at practice and games and having tutorials after school before sports practice begins. Would my child survive without all the above. Probably. But again, this all makes for a safer, more pleasant environment for my children to become the best student, and eventually adult, they can be.
Maureen Downey
October 2nd, 2012
11:10 am
@centrist, Not sure how drug testing is a liberal vs. conservative issue. For me, there are practical questions: Does it work? It’s fairly invasive — pulling kids out of class randomly and asking them to provide a urine sample is not a minor request.
It would seem logical to me to see if something works before using it.
But that’s just me.
And the discussion issue isn’t whether Woodward should do it; the school has already decided that. But whether the practice makes sense in general, and, if so, should it be used more widely?
Maureen
Aquagirl
October 2nd, 2012
11:21 am
It would seem logical to me to see if something works before using it.
But that’s just me.
Maureen, your mistake is thinking the policy is about the kids. It’s not. It’s about the parent’s feelings. If it makes them feel better whether it actually affects drug use among the students is completely irrelevant.
eraser clapper
October 2nd, 2012
11:26 am
all I ever hear is that private school’s don’t have drug issues like government schools. so good for Woodward for stepping up and leading this.
When, not if, a student or teacher gets “popped” for being dirty. I hope the school takes time to educate kids on the some of the root causes of drug addiction in America, whether it’s prescription drugs or illegal. we will then lift the vail of drugs are only an issue in government schools.
Lexi
October 2nd, 2012
11:28 am
Seems to me that the intrusion is minor. My children attend another private school and participate in athletics. They (along with all other students) are required to undergo baseline testing for concussions which takes more effort than eliminating nitrogen in a cup.
I trust that the school administrators, who have a dog in the fight, are in a better position than semi-professional opiners (who freely make decisions involving others’ money and rights) to determine the relative efficacy of the test and make a proper cost-benefit determination. And, for private schools, it’s simply a matter of contract. If a parents objects to the term of the contract authorizing testing, that parent is free to move her child to another school.
Seems as though some folks are always finding surveys, often of suspect validity done by people with hidden agendas, to advance their own conclusions and reinforce their own opinions. Not your father’s science.
get real
October 2nd, 2012
11:28 am
Woodward needs to prepare for the spike in alcohol related incidents this new policy will certainly drive while at the same time prepare themselves to be the next case study of ineffective drug policy and parental hubris.
a reader
October 2nd, 2012
11:42 am
the intrusion is only minor if the school can completely handle this in house (either public or private). And I do agree that when I have a kid in private school I agree to *THEIR RULES*.
The problem here, though, is that the school rule may be unfortunately coming up against a new GA provision that requires reporting at the state level *EVEN* from private schools (as well as from public).
Do you want your school, public OR private, to test for drugs if a positive test results in not just an in-house issue but also a report to the state of GA and DDS, etc.?
Centrist
October 2nd, 2012
11:56 am
You must have posted your 11:10 am comment before reading my 10:59 am expanded comment.
Drug testing in schools is no more “invasive” than in the workplace where it is done routinely. Isn’t school meant to be a preparation for later life? It works for businesses, the military, and many private and public schools (with individual parental authorization) – but liberals like you put up straw dog arguments like “see if something works before using it”.
flipper
October 2nd, 2012
12:00 pm
Some Woodward kid who doesn’t do drugs for one reason or another (maybe because he’s Woodward Dad’s kid and gets tested at home) is going to make a mint selling clean urine to his pothead friends.
Larry M
October 2nd, 2012
12:02 pm
As a Woodward alum (who attend the school for 10+ years and loved it), I am completely disgusted by this policy change. Congratulations, President Gulley – you have just debased Woodward’s image. Your argument that Woodward doesn’t have a drug problem… but we need to test anyway doesn’t hold any logical water. Yes, Woodward is private therefore they can test whomever they want for whatever reason (or, apparently, no reason whatsoever if you believe Woodward). That doesn’t make it right or mean you should do it.
Any thoughts I may have had of sending my kids there is now gone and I will be sure to let Woodward know.
Water From Heaven
October 2nd, 2012
12:10 pm
Questions for those that oppose random testing: If you are presented with second-hand information (either from your child’s friend, another parent, etc) that your child has been using drugs, would you ignore it? Would you say to them, “How dare you betray my child by giving me this information?”
I am bewildered why any parent would be opposed to anything that would give them insight as to what their child may be doing that is detrimental to their well being.
Maureen, I typically agree with you but producing urine is a minor request and not invasive. I’m 100% certain that my two kids have done this everyday of their lives and when they were little at times when I wish they didn’t.
We need more parents like Woodward Dad and Fred.
Fred ™
October 2nd, 2012
12:18 pm
Any thoughts I may have had of sending my kids there is now gone and I will be sure to let Woodward know.
Thanks Larry. I don’t want your pothead children selling drugs to my daughter anyway.
Centrist
October 2nd, 2012
12:19 pm
The parents who say they will rethink Woodward will make somebody on the waiting list happy – except parents who like this policy may be adding their kids to the waiting list.
Woodward Dad
October 2nd, 2012
12:21 pm
A reader,
I think the reporting to law enforcement is only if the illegal act is made on school property. Someone would have to be seen using or dispensing a controlled substance on the school property before any reporting is required. I don’t think finding a substance in a students, teachers or administrators “precious bodily fluids” would meet that test. But again, I’m not an attorney.
But I have to ask, isn’t any illegal act still illegal even if committed on private property? You can’t assault someone on private property and use that as a defense. You are still “in the public eye.” How could using drugs publicly on school property, whether a public or private school, be any less illegal? I know it is a slippery slope but there has to be some reasonable level of protection of the public. Whatever activity you do in the privacy of you home is your business, that is until that activity has a negative impact on the public when you leave the privacy of your home. I would suggest that maybe the existing law needs further review if it appears local law enforcement is being overwhelmed with notices from school administrators of students using or dispensing controlled substances on campuses. Of course that’s assuming all administrators are following the law. I’m just sayin.
We are all opining strongly on this issue while we still have “parents” who lock their children in a closet for years and evidently believe that is their prerogative as a “parent”. Now there’s a couple that have bigger problems than any random drug test will solve.
Fred ™
October 2nd, 2012
12:22 pm
As long as they don’t test the parents I’m all down with this idea………….
wolfman
October 2nd, 2012
12:24 pm
Many companies drug test. If you use drugs don’t apply. If you don’t want to be drug tested, find another school. As for the studies how do they know that drug use among students of schools that drug test are similar to those that don’t? They walk down the halls and ask? At least the schools that drug test will know what their problems are.
Fred ™
October 2nd, 2012
12:27 pm
Oh but to the other part of your question Maureen? I don’t think it is a good idea for public schools. We need to quit finding reasons NOT to educate children.
Entitlement Society
October 2nd, 2012
12:27 pm
OK, so this Annenburg Public Policy Study says “Research conducted with over 940 high school students in two nationally representative surveys finds that male students in high schools that conduct student drug testing report no less recent use of alcohol, marijuana, or cigarettes than male students in schools without drug testing.”
The study looked at 14-19 year olds in 2007-8 and is now looking at RECENT use. Do the math people. These “studies” can manipulate numbers and words to present whatever hidden agenda they want to. This blog post is about testing for ILLEGAL DRUGS, not cigarettes, not alcohol. When you add 4 or 5 years (to get us to “recent” times), the majority of those 14-19 year olds they surveyed are now 21+ and can legally consume both cigarettes and alcohol, so the relevancy of this statement is really much less impactful. So they were tested for drugs in high school and now they legally drink alcohol, so what?
Jim Chaput
October 2nd, 2012
12:30 pm
A fanatic is one who redoubles his efforts when he loses sight of his goal, and there is an awful lot of anti-drug fanaticism expressed here. Are you people really willing to trash these kids lives, to put them in jail, and raise them in a prison atmosphere out of fear that they might possibly be smoking pot? Out of all the myriad problems afflicting our society, can you honestly say that the possibility that teenagers might be smoking pot is the most important, or the easiest to solve?
The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution for good reasons, and over the years we have paid for it in blood. Are you people really willing to excise the 4th Amendment because somebody, somewhere might have smoked a home-made cigarette last weekend? Do you really think that these intrusive, random searches conducted with no pretense of probable cause will do anything to strengthen our society?
vince
October 2nd, 2012
12:36 pm
Maybe it is a good idea. My wife’s parents sent her, and her siblings, to a ritzy private high school for a couple of years when they heard there was a problem with drugs in their local public high school. As it turned out, my wife and her sisters found that drug use was much more prevalent in the private school because the kids had more “disposable income.”.
If parents don’t like the idea they can take their kids somewhere else.
Larry M
October 2nd, 2012
12:36 pm
Fred,
Maybe if you actually decided to do some parenting, your daughter wouldn’t be interested in buying drugs from my “pothead children” in the first place. But why do the work of parenting your child when you can rely on Woodward to do it for you through invasive searches of your daughter’s person?
Head Scratcher
October 2nd, 2012
12:40 pm
I’m not sure where some of you are employed. But drug tests are not routinely administered. Job applicants go to these sort of minute clinics for drug testing following job interviews. After hired, if a manager cares enough to suspect an employee of illegal drug use or substance abuse they may report employees to Human Resource Departments who then send employees to be tested.
Drug testing is outsourced most places because it is an unnecessary expense.
Rick C
October 2nd, 2012
12:50 pm
Woodward Dad, how can you agree with the testing of teachers if you think what people do in their own homes is their business? It’s not like a drug test only comes back positive when someone is under the influence. Depending on the drug, it can remain in the system for days or even weeks.
Fred ™
October 2nd, 2012
12:50 pm
Larry M
October 2nd, 2012
12:36 pm
Fred,
Maybe if you actually decided to do some parenting, your daughter wouldn’t be interested in buying drugs from my “pothead children” in the first place. But why do the work of parenting your child when you can rely on Woodward to do it for you through invasive searches of your daughter’s person?
+++++++++++++++++++++
Nice try Larry boy, but I’m not buying it. Professionals more qualified than you have tried and failed to play travel agent to get me to board the shame train for a guilt trip.
You see Larry M, (and I don’t buy your Woodward Alum lie. If you were you would know the card to play that THEY would listen to is the donation card as they solicit the hell out of alums for donations), I’m not worried about my daughter. It’s YOUR unsupervised pothead kids I’m concerned about. I don’t pay 20 grand so she has to deal with folks like you. Thanks for playing.
Centrist
October 2nd, 2012
12:59 pm
@ Head Scratcher – Most fortune 500 companies do random drug tests, the military, and all companies involved in transportation. You might want to look at this list: http://www.testclear.com/dtcompanies/companyresults.aspx
Woodward Dad
October 2nd, 2012
1:02 pm
I was waiting for someone to bring up the 4th amendment argument. Frankly, I suspected someone to propose this was an Agenda 21 plot or some fallout from the unsuccessful TSPLOST vote.
The 4th amendment protects us from “unreasonable searches or seizures” unless getting a warrant “describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Well this is a very public description of the place (Woodward Academy) and the persons (students, faculty and staff). So no one is being forced to take the drug test by the government. If you don’t want to be subjected to a random test (your chances are 4 in 10 of being picked) then either don’t take illegal substances or go to another school that chooses not to check to see if students or adults are coming to school under the influence of a controlled substance.
Anyway you look at it, you still have the choice. Public schools may be different, but private schools can dictate a code of conduct that may be more restrictive than some people like. But that is by choice.
As for the Woodward alum who won’t send his children to Woodward because of the random drug test, I’m sorry you feel that way. There were probably some GMA alums who thought the same when Col. Woodward started admitting females and integrated. If you know anything about how Woodward works, you know Dr. Gulley didn’t just think of this idea one day and implement it the next. He has a Board of very prominent and thoughtful leaders from throughout Atlanta and the nation who he reports to. This decision was made with considerable deliberation. You don’t survive for over 100 years and become the largest independent non-boarding private institution in the continental US without having bold and thoughtful leadership. You know what Woodward gave you. So you will deny that opportunity to your children?
Fred ™
October 2nd, 2012
1:05 pm
If you know anything about how Woodward works, you know Dr. Gulley didn’t just think of this idea one day and implement it the next. He has a Board of very prominent and thoughtful leaders from throughout Atlanta and the nation who he reports to.
He even talked to my wife about it lol.
Larry M
October 2nd, 2012
1:09 pm
It’s ok, Fred. I’ll stop. I can see I’ve touched a nerve here on your parenting and, apparently, the many questions others have raised about it. Who knows; maybe Woodward’s drug testing regime fits right into your parenting plan for your daughter: “Speak only when spoken to, don’t ask questions, don’t challenge authority, do as your told. Now go help your mom fold the laundry.”
When I was at WA, we had some teachers who encouraged questions and critical thinking. The motto used to be “Every opportunity for every student.” I guess they need to change that one – “Every opportunity for every student.* (*subject to testing and approval)”.
Rick C
October 2nd, 2012
1:10 pm
“or go to another school that chooses not to check to see if students or adults are coming to school under the influence of a controlled substance.”
Woodward Dad, again, a positive drug test does not mean the person is under the influence at that time. Depending on the drug, a test could show positive even weeks after last using the drug.
Fred ™
October 2nd, 2012
1:15 pm
Larry M, you haven’t been correct yet on me OR my daughter. You HAVE been caught out though. We get that you are mad that if you send your pothead kids to Woodward that they will be found out. Well actually you’re mad that YOU would have to stop smoking pot in the house and giving them that contact high…………. LOL dude you crack me up.
I WOULD try to be “witty” and remind you to ask your customers if they want fries with their Big Mac but alas, McDonald’s drug tests………….
Head Scratcher
October 2nd, 2012
1:19 pm
@Centrist,
If memory serves me correctly, you often seem to miss the point and then justify a limited argument by inserting some obscure link. What is missing from the site that you posted is any data that documents ‘RANDOM’ testing. They test potential hires. If you submit a job application and are offered a position, you are notified that ‘COMPANY A’ is a drug free environment and you must be drug tested prior to starting. But once you’re in, the likelihood that you’ll be tested again without suspicion resembles that odds of which you’ll win the lottery.
And again, it is outsourced. Why would Woodward Academy keep a staff person who can properly collect urine samples from minors and either test them on-site or ship them to an outside company who will? It . . . makes . . . little . . . to . . . no . . . sense!
In a preparatory school environment like that, teachers are likely to notice bizarre behavior of some sort from their students. And most of the teachers are practically on a first name basis with their students’ parents. They are capable of telling their students’ parents when something is “off” and getting parents involved. Which is likely what already goes on now.
Larry M
October 2nd, 2012
1:22 pm
Woodward Dad,
Believe me, I loved my experience at Woodward. The best thing about Woodward was the teachers – they actually taught critical thinking, not just regurgitation of pointless facts. I am extremely disappointed in this policy change for both personal and libertarian reasons. I would love to have sent my kids there. But I will not subject them to such an environment where everyone is under suspicion, regardless of the evidence presented. Woodward is completely within their legal and constitutional rights to do this – but that doesn’t mean they should.
I’m sure this idea was fully vetted with the Board of Governors, etc. But again, why do this when there is no evidence of a problem? Not to mention no evidence in support of the efficacy of the “solution” to solve the supposed non-existent problem. Are you seeing the logical problems here?
You cannot compare implementing a search of your bodily fluids to integration and admission of women to GMA, come on. The latter actually expanded individual freedom, not curtailed it.
David E.
October 2nd, 2012
1:28 pm
Read between the lines a little bit here. “Woodward has no hard evidence of growing drug use by students.” What are they defining as “hard evidence?” The reality is that, among high school students in the private school community, Woodward has earned the nickname “Weedward,” and they’re trying to nip that in the bud.
Also, for those of you so interested in the overall Fourth Amendment rights of the young people involved, look at another reality here. A private school is going to drug test a bunch of overprivileged rich kids. They won’t get much sympathy from me. Heck, while they’re at it, why not search the new BMWs in the student parking lot too?
Woodward Dad
October 2nd, 2012
1:36 pm
Fred,
Sounds like Dr. Gulley went to the highest source for enlightenment. LOL I heard he took a survey at the Brake Pad too! (just kidding)
Larry M,
Woodward still does give “Every opportunity for every student” and “teaches the child” and doesn’t just “teach the subject”. And no, my kids don’t speak only when spoken to and worse, don’t help fold the laundry (my wife makes me do that). But as you know, Woodward does expect students to follow the published rules (we still have a “Dean of Discipline”). She is probably the same one you had when you attended WA.
Life is about adapting successfully to our surroundings. Unfortunately some schools choose to adapt in reverse. Mommy and daddy won’t be there when the employer says go take a drug test or your fired. Mommy and daddy won’t be there when a cohort gets promoted because they had a masters degree and little Johnny didn’t. Mommy and daddy won’t be there when the boss says “I don’t care if flip-flops are fashionable, you come to work dressed professionally or your fired.” I’d rather have my children learn to adapt now than wait until the cruel world hits them right between the eyes. (Besides we want to downsize and having twenty somethings at home don’t fit into that scenario.)
John Konop
October 2nd, 2012
1:41 pm
WDAD,
……….. But I have to ask, isn’t any illegal act still illegal even if committed on private property? You can’t assault someone on private property and use that as a defense. You are still “in the public eye.” How could using drugs publicly on school property, whether a public or private school, be any less illegal? I know it is a slippery slope but there has to be some reasonable level of protection of the public………….
Drug issues are a health issue that is the problem with your analogy. Do you really equate a high school kid smoking pot with and assault? I am a parent so I get the problem, but the bigger issue is do we really want the law enforcement dealing with parental issues?
Centrist
October 2nd, 2012
1:48 pm
@ Head Scratcher – Unlike you, I don’t make this stuff up to fit my stance but the other way around. “Over 80% of the Fortune 500 companies require drug and alcohol testing of their employees. These companies understand that substance-abuse costs industry over $165,000,000,000 annually in loss of productivity, theft, accidents, absenteeism, increased workers’ compensation, and health care. They also know that drug and alcohol testing works, and that the implementation of a drug testing program significantly reduces positive test-results. It screens new employees for substance abuse, and identifies employees who may need treatment.”
Random drug and alcohol testing is required of safety-sensitive transportation employees in aviation, trucking, railroads, mass transit, pipelines, and other transportation industries. The same holds true for The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and commercial nuclear power industry. Drug testing has been upheld for customs officers who are directly involved in drug interdiction, and for employees who are required to carry firearms. I’m sure in addition to the military there are other industries that outright require it on top of those who voluntarily random test.
Your pretending it is not a common occurrence outside of small businesses is not helping the liberal argument against testing in public schools.
bootney farnsworth
October 2nd, 2012
1:49 pm
@ Woodward Dad
the jews obeyed the rules – look what happened to them.
society is paved with the debris of people who followed the rules and
got run over by society.
bootney farnsworth
October 2nd, 2012
1:51 pm
its really stupid to equate private school to real life / workplace behavior.
bootney farnsworth
October 2nd, 2012
1:58 pm
part of what bothers me about this is the defacto imposition it puts on people’s private lives.
while there is no place for a stoned teacher or student, what they do on their own time is and should be their business. or in the case of the students, what their parents allow.
bootney farnsworth
October 2nd, 2012
2:04 pm
@ centrist
2 things
-most businesses in the US are small businesses. so the bulk of the working population is free from this intrusion.
-I worked for the state of Ga for over 20 years. random testing was not allowed without documented suspicion. only the very few highly sensitive jobs had an acception to this.
bootney farnsworth
October 2nd, 2012
2:06 pm
the oly way this makes sense is if there is a problem at Woodward and they are trying to get out in front of it publicity wise
Woodward Dad
October 2nd, 2012
2:06 pm
John,
I’m not arguing health or parental responsibility. I’m just stating what the law is. Under Georgia law, illegal use of a controlled substance is either a misdemeanor or a felony. The law doesn’t say “depending on age.” And no, I personally don’t equate a kid smoking pot with assault. But neither do I equate stealing a $550 flat screen TV with stealing a $75,000 Lexus. But Georgia law says they are one in the same. That is why we have courts and judges. The point I am trying to make (and apparently not doing a very good job at it) is there are rules we have to live by and our kids need to understand there are consequences for ignoring the rules/laws. If you will get into trouble by using illegal substances, beware the consequences. And at Woodward, you will be randomly tested for drug abuse starting next year.
FJ
October 2nd, 2012
2:06 pm
I think this is so odd. I agree with the poster that pointed out that this will lead to a lot more drinking and other hard drugs that don’t stay in the system nearly as long. I would much rather my kids smoke a little pot every now and then than get wasted, get in the car with wasted friends, or start experimenting with things like cocaine and pills. I also agree with the poster that said it sets up an environment of distrust and animosity. I am a private school parent and I would raise holy hell if they told us they were implementing this policy. Fortunately it is a progressive school and I don’t think this would ever fly.
Aquagirl
October 2nd, 2012
2:07 pm
Life is about adapting successfully to our surroundings.
Well said. I’m sure the hardcore druggies will adapt quickly and remain right there next to your kid in class.
Drug testing works….IF it’s a comprehensive, airtight program. As someone already pointed out there is some enterprising kid who will make a mint selling clean urine to the regular users. Woodward will bust a couple of kids who experiment and the parents can all rejoice in the knowledge it’s all unicorns and rainbows in their drug-free school.
AlreadySheared
October 2nd, 2012
2:14 pm
Well, a hit dog will holler.
I take advil when I have a headache because it stops the pain. Why the enthusiasm among some posters here for recreational drugs?
John Konop
October 2nd, 2012
2:27 pm
Wdad,
……..I’m not arguing health or parental responsibility. I’m just stating what the law is. Under Georgia law, illegal use of a controlled substance is either a misdemeanor or a felony. The law doesn’t say “depending on age.” And no, I personally don’t equate a kid smoking pot with assault. But neither do I equate stealing a $550 flat screen TV with stealing a $75,000 Lexus. But Georgia law says they are one in the same. That is why we have courts and judges. The point I am trying to make (and apparently not doing a very good job at it) is there are rules we have to live by and our kids need to understand there are consequences for ignoring the rules/laws. If you will get into trouble by using illegal substances, beware the consequences. And at Woodward, you will be randomly tested for drug abuse starting next year…
I want to make it clear as a private school they can do what they want. This post was about expanding this to public schools. And my fear is this will only add to the failed “War on Drug” policy that especially hurts working class families. A study at Ohio State claims this is one of the highest contributors to the increase in poverty. I would be against this policy until we start treating the issue as a health problem not a “Scarlet Letter” for life. I find it even more hypocritical, because many pushing the policy had the same youthful mistakes, and under the same policy I wonder how their life would of turned out?
Woodward Dad
October 2nd, 2012
2:35 pm
farnsworth,
You said “the jews obeyed the rules – look what happened to them.” I’m sorry but you have to explain that one to me. God gave them the 10 Commandments so they would know right from wrong? Is that what you meant? I don’t get it. If the Pharaoh had obeyed the rules of nature he wouldn’t have sent his army into the parted Red Sea? Is that it?
You also said “society is paved with the debris of people who followed the rules and
got run over by society.” No, as Albert Einstein said, “You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else.” I’m hopefully preparing my kids to play the game better than anyone else.
I’m still vexed by your first comment though????
AngryRedMarsWoman
October 2nd, 2012
2:37 pm
“Questions for those that oppose random testing: If you are presented with second-hand information (either from your child’s friend, another parent, etc) that your child has been using drugs, would you ignore it? Would you say to them, “How dare you betray my child by giving me this information?”
No. I would listen and then investigate. If I thought there was adequate evidence at hand to warrant testing my child I would do so. Similarly, my son’s school can test him if they have reasonable suspicion. The specter of random testing doesn’t do much to prevent drug use. The kids who won’t use just won’t use. The kids who use will either believe they won’t be tested or they will find a way around the test (not all drugs are picked up in a urine test). There is a false sense of security created by random testing, a sense that the kids will be too scared to use, and it just doesn’t play out that way. As I said earlier, I want the adults at my school to be active and present in the lives of my son and his schoolmates – reasonable suspicion testing, attentive teachers/admin and involved parents will do more to squash drug use than random testing will.
Everyone keeps bringing up employment-based testing as if they are all subject to random testing throughout the course of their careers. Save for those in certain positions (like DOT drivers, police, military and the like), most people will face a test when they are offered employment and not thereafter unless there is reasonable suspicion. I invite you to check the law – both federal and state – and see for yourself…if you are not in a safety-sensitive position and your employer is making you pee in a cup all the time then you have a good lawsuit on your hands.
Woodward Dad
October 2nd, 2012
2:45 pm
John,
I agree with you. Well put. My kids went to public schools for only a short time so I can’t comment on the environment in public schools today. It is easier to deal with a school of 2,000 students than a public system with over 1 million. This is a huge issue that has no easy macro fix, or frankly, it would have been solved by now. However, at the micro level, at a school that can remove you from its premises for unacceptable behavior, this policy may work. For those attending or thinking about attending Woodward, at least they know the policy going forward and can make an educated decision on whether to attend or not. For me, I see it as a positive. Have a great day.
Head Scratcher
October 2nd, 2012
2:50 pm
@Centrist,
As usual, everything you don’t agree with seems to be “liberal.” I appreciate you “liberally” cutting and pasting a passage that you no doubt found somewhere else. (Cite your sources next time!) I’ve had the fortune to work in two of the fields that you so broadly referenced above. In my experience, the drug testing was conducted upon entry to the workplace (prior to Day 1) and triggered by incidents. (On the job or off the job.) There is nothing random about that.
However, in this case, (or so I’ve read . . I hope I have the facts scrambled), administrators at Woodward Academy are going to randomly select members of the student body and have them provide a urine sample. Bear in mind, firearms are forbidden, they don’t operate heavy machinery or commercial vehicles, and unless they have a Chemistry Professor with a liberal agenda (Of course!) they won’t be handling nuclear material. Students’ families pay to attend Woodward Academy. The examples of losses that you so eloquently “borrowed” (liberally) do not apply. Therefore, the rationale for instituting this policy makes no sense.
flipper
October 2nd, 2012
3:10 pm
Oh …. Woodward Dad… If your kids are smart… they will “learn the rules of the game and then play the game better than everyone else” by making great money selling their clean urine to potheads. Or maybe some kids smarter than they are will figure it out and they will be the ones making the money.
Woodward can clearly do what it wants in this regard. It appears that most folks are on board with the policy over there. However, it’s a stupid policy. Alcohol abuse is a far worse and more dangerous problem than marijuana abuse and there is no way to test to see if a kid (maybe Woodward Dad’s kid) got knee walking drunk last Saturday night… and the Saturday before… and the Saturday before that.
Teen unsafe sex and promiscuous sex is also a dangerous problem – again.. more dangerous than pot. However, Woodward does not have a way to test for either of these things, so Woodward Dad and the other Woodward parents will have no way to know if their daughter or son took part in a teen orgy last Saturday night… or the Saturday before.
That is why this is a stupid policy. All these parents will “rest easy” knowing that their kids definitely (if they didn’t figure out how to jack the test) smoke pot last month. Meanwhile their kids could be engaging in much more dangerous behavior without any chance of being caught by the school.
Rick C
October 2nd, 2012
3:20 pm
flipper, very good points. It’s also worth pointing out that it’s not out of the realm of possibility that a student could use cocaine or opiates every Friday night, and then still test clean by Monday morning. Drug testing is simply just not a viable solution to stop drug usage.
Centrist
October 2nd, 2012
3:46 pm
My last post on this subject, and again directed at Head Scratcher: As I previously pointed out, school is preparation for the future. I have outlined where so many prospective employers screen for drugs (and they do carry out random tests even if your experience was different). It is in the students’ and parents’ best interest to nip in the bud any experimentation either by the testing deterrent, or testing confirmation. Either stopping a long road of destructive behavior, or students becoming ineligible for many industries and careers is reason enough for random testing in schools. There are far too many people who think a little recreational drug use can be controlled and not lead to addiction or complications. I lost a family member that way.
And the cop out that students don’t work in safety related industries is pitiful. They are immature with little experience, make poor impulsive knee-jerk decisions, drive cars, and have access to weapons and matches.
Woodward Dad
October 2nd, 2012
3:54 pm
Flipper,
You need to come up for air a little more frequently. You’re running low on oxygen. I’m not asking Woodward to check if my kids are at a “teen orgy” or “knee walking drunk” last weekend. That’s my job. And believe me I check on that constantly. The “cloud” is such a great thing. But if they know they might be tested for illegal drug use and it helps them divert pressure from peers who have no fear of getting kicked out of a good school, then I am guilty as charged for supporting this measure.
Jim Chaput
October 2nd, 2012
4:14 pm
Woodward Dad – calm down and smell the flowers, you’re becoming a bit shrill. If you are that concerned about the effect of illegal drugs on your children, sit down with them and hear their side of the story. Later, read a few histories of the Prohibition Era to give yourself a little perspective on the War on Drugs. If you look close you will see that the “Noble Experiment” of the 1920s was in reality a grubby power grab by people so fanatically opposed to the evils of alcohol that they could not see that the evils of Prohibition were worse. In time, the anti-drug warriors of today will be seen as latter-day Wayne Wheelers and Carrie Nations.
There is no question that society would be better off without both alcohol and the illegal drugs. But after wasting thousands of lives, trashing the Bill of Rights and squandering hundreds of millions of dollars our grandparents had to admit Prohibition didn’t work and vote for Repeal. In the same way, it is time for us to admit that Drug Prohibition doesn’t work and vote for Repeal and regulation.
The critical point is that the little good that was in Prohibition died with Repeal but much of the evil in Prohibition lives on today. In the same way, the little good that is in the current Drug Prohibition will die when we finally vote for Repeal but the evils in Drug Prohibition will be with us for a generation after Repeal.
Oh, and just for the record, I don’t smoke pot.
John Konop
October 2nd, 2012
4:20 pm
Flipper,
It is rather obnoxious of you offering parenting advise to Woodward Dad. From reading his comments he seems like a bright and reasonable guy who is only trying to do the best thing for his kids. Being a parent is not an easy job! This post is not about the parents at this school. It is about should this policy be expanded to public schools. Like many of us, he is doing what he thinks is best for his kid. As a parent I fully understand and appreciate his view.
John Konop
October 2nd, 2012
4:29 pm
Jim Chaput,
… trashing the Bill of Rights..
What part of private school do you not understand? He already said he did not support the policy for public schools. And he also understands the issues with criminalizing the behavior.
W Dad
….I agree with you. Well put..
I wrote
…………I want to make it clear as a private school they can do what they want. This post was about expanding this to public schools. And my fear is this will only add to the failed “War on Drug” policy that especially hurts working class families. A study at Ohio State claims this is one of the highest contributors to the increase in poverty. I would be against this policy until we start treating the issue as a health problem not a “Scarlet Letter” for life. I find it even more hypocritical, because many pushing the policy had the same youthful mistakes, and under the same policy I wonder how their life would of turned out?……
Thinker
October 2nd, 2012
5:20 pm
There are multiple challenges with this policy program.
If I am not mistaken in the past Woodward, like its peer institutions, identified problem students and they were asked politely to not return. This system met each stakeholders’ needs; problem children left and received proper counseling, classrooms were free of trouble makers, parents knew their children could focus on school work and students grew into adulthood. This worked in the past, what changed now?
The new program presents many questions and challenges. Will the testing truly be random, or will the children of board members and donors skirt the system? Will statistical anomalies be reported? Will otherwise quality kids be shamed after a positive test? Will this program enhance student life in any meaningful way? How will Woodward graduates respond during their first taste of freedom in college? Will substance abuse outcomes be tracked in post graduation? How does this program effectively educate students about the real risks of drugs and alcohol? And finally, what does this policy reveal about Woodward as an institution?
Many of us have seen classmates, coworkers, friends and perhaps even family struggle with substance problems. And yes, early detection is easier than a few stints in rehab. However, do these outliers warrant treating underage students like probationers and parolees? Don’t these problem cases manifest themselves with easily identifiable symptoms anyway?
And perhaps this is off topic, but at a time when cannabis legalization bills are on multiple election ballots, why are some organizations doubling their efforts to identify drug users, primarily cannabis users? I do not use myself, but I am cognizant of our national spending on cannabis prohibition.
FJ
October 2nd, 2012
8:31 pm
Fantastic post, Thinker!
mgdawg
October 2nd, 2012
9:43 pm
I really don’t understand what the big deal is. First it is a private school, if you don’t like it take your kids somewhere else. Second, if your kids aren’t doing drugs you shouldn’t have a problem with it and should probably like that your kids aren’t going to school with people doing drugs. Third, I have had only a couple of full time jobs and for both of them I was drug tested. This was not them accusing me of doing drugs, this was them protecting themselves because they may have interviewed me but they don’t really know who I am. Most jobs are implementing drug testing, so eventually they will be tested.
Sandy Springs Parent
October 2nd, 2012
10:35 pm
My biggest question is what is going to happen to all the kids with ADD or ADHD? My daughters can not pass a drug test due to ADHD Drugs. About 1/2 the kids in Private school take them because admin ask them too
Dekalbite
October 2nd, 2012
10:40 pm
On drug testing adults – As a teacher for three decades (and also a business person for a decade), I would have been extremely insulted if someone had asked me to pee in a cup. There seems something degrading about being asked to give my urine to anyone but my doctor. However, my daughter teaches at a private school, has to pee in a cup, and she is not insulted at all so perhaps it’s a generational thing.
As for drug testing students, I do not think that will deter them for numerous reasons, and it certainly won’t educate them about why they should not do drugs – on the contrary – it sends the message of don’t get caught. IMHO – involving teens in sports, service organizations, and church activities as well as encouraging them to develop more healthful outlets from horse back riding to dancing to volunteering in homeless shelters to building homes for Habitat for Humanity to joining the Drama club, etc. are much more effective in deterring drug use. Many teens experiment with drugs out of boredom, peer pressure, and low self esteem. Getting them out of their own heads and into the world at large creates less of a opportunity and attraction to turn to drugs to the extent of messing up their lives.
Again, it comes back to parents. Drug testing at schools seems a way for some if not many parents to abrogate their responsibility. It seems we have enough of this already going on in schools. You don’t just lock away your kid until he/she becomes 18 and then figure he/she has the good sense to steer clear of all temptation. For many when they get to college, all hell breaks loose unless they have some anchor to moor them to good values.
Atlanta Mom
October 2nd, 2012
10:50 pm
And doncha know, all the kids had poppy seed bagels for breakfast on the morning of those drug tests. Probably ate them all week.
Fred ™
October 3rd, 2012
1:00 am
Woodward Dad
October 2nd, 2012
1:36 pm
Fred,
Sounds like Dr. Gulley went to the highest source for enlightenment. LOL I heard he took a survey at the Brake Pad too! (just kidding)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually I was mistaken. They didn’t discuss it. I thought when she told me about it the other day that she had, but their meeting was about a different issue.
As to your smart ass comment about the highest sources? It wasn’t so smart assed. HAD he consulted her he would have been consulting a peer. My wife has been a college President before just as Gulley has been………..
Woodward Dad
October 3rd, 2012
7:12 am
Relax Fred. I was trying to interject a little humor into a discussion that had gotten personal between some of the posts. That’s why I said LOL and commented on the Brake Pad. The point I was making is Dr. Gulley takes lots of input before he makes a decision of this magnitude. He has contacted me on issues in my area of expertise before making a policy decision. Random drug testing of students is a major policy decision and it would not surprise me if he went to the highest sources of enlightenment: our wives.
Another Comment
October 3rd, 2012
10:21 am
Woodward has to set the way at hiding the secrets. What happened to the last Headmaster? Didn’t he jump from a midtown hotel?
It is well know in the Teenage twitter world that Woodward is Weedward,
The real kicker about this policy, is that when your child is kicked out of a private school, you do not get your check for $20 + grand back. Ussually, you have multiple kids in the school and you are so made you want them all out at the same time.
I remember we all got pulled from a private school, when I was in sixth grade, over an incident with my brother. I had always thought it was that they were going to fail him and he would end up in the same grade as my youngest sister. But now in her mid 80’s my mother is talking. Tuition for 4 kids is alot of money, no matter how small it was back in the 1970’s. The teacher was locking my brother up in a closet with what they in the 1970’s called a “mentally retarded boy” for hours. My mother has told me that she thought it was too wild a story to believe, and didn’t believe my brother at first. Then when he repeatedly told her, she went in to confront the Principal. My mother says that women just sat their and looked at her with a smirk on her face and she knew it was true. So out all 4 of us went. No tuition refund.
Woodward will be adding to the bottom line. Kid out after two outs. Gone will not only be that kid, but 2, 3, 4 + other kids in the middle of the year. Woodward starts calling up the waiting list. Would you like to come now. Of course the answer is yes. I got my child in to Private School in January, after going to open Houses and being approached. If you pay 1/2 years tuition you can start right after Christmas. You are so frazled by Public School you go. My child took the place of a child of a prominent Surgeon’s Child from St. Joe’s who had been booted for pulling the chair out from under girls and laughing ( how do I know, this girl and other girls became her best friend and couldn’t wait to tell her). I am sure that Woodward will have a line of those who find Whitefield too Religious. They don’t like Whitefield’s Christmas break project of converting a non-believer over Christmas Break.
John Konop
October 3rd, 2012
10:55 am
I live in Cherokee County and have no dog in this fight about the quality of education at Woodward. I am very familiar about the excellent reputation of the school. My son played travel soccer with a few students from Woodward. From the parents and students I have met, overall I heard very positive feedback. If I lived near the school my wife and I would of been proud to send our children to this school.
You may disagree with this policy at the school. But spewing hate at one of the top private schools in the country does not lend creditability to your argument. As I said for public schools, I am against the policy. But at a private school, I do have some reservations, but it would not stop my wife and I from sending our kids to one of the best private schools in the country!
Mr. Nice Guy
October 3rd, 2012
11:11 am
Woodward Academy, like many similar high-toned private educational institutions, has an honor code, prominently featured on their web site:
“Recognizing that Woodward Academy was founded upon the ideals of personal honor and integrity, upon my honor, I promise not to lie, steal, cheat, plagiarize or assist others in those actions.”
Random drug testing says to the student body their “personal honor and integrity” means little and that they are suspects until proven innocent. You can’t have it both ways.
Ex-Woodward Mom
October 3rd, 2012
4:26 pm
Woodward rarely gets anything wrong. Our child was there for three years but we were forced to withdraw due to the economy. We are not rich by any means, just reordered our priorities and made some sacrifices for our child. We would love to return because it is an ideal learning environment for the child who thrives in a structured environment. I am in total agreement with any policy that keeps disruptions and foolishness to a minimum in an academic setting. Teachers are not made to be police officers and social workers at Woodward Academy and that’s just one reason why it’s such an outstanding school.
Fred ™
October 3rd, 2012
6:28 pm
Ex-Woodward Mom: Have you checked in any of the scholarship programs? I have one child and like you, we make MANY sacrifices for her to be in school. Luckily we have so far survived this economy and our sacrifices are doing it. I know they have tuition programs, have you looked into them? We would love to have you back.
Ex-Woodward Mom
October 3rd, 2012
7:14 pm
Thanks for that Fred. We would love to be back in the Woodward family and definitely plan to make our way back home when we can. Our child was not eligible for financial aid due to her grade level. She was an excellent student there and well regarded by her teachers and the administration. She is quite advanced where she’s currently enrolled and is quite the little ambassador for Woodward as all of her current teachers want to know the school she’d previously attended. They are amazed at her level of maturity and academic preparation. She makes sure to credit Woodward for that.
Atlanta Mom
October 6th, 2012
11:14 pm
I understand that this is an emotional topic but, it is really sad to read comments by ADULTS who name call, jeer & make fun of others who have an opinion they don’t agree with. Since this is an article & discussion that focuses on raising our children let us all try to be better examples for them & stick to the opinions & facts, not name calling & belittling each other.
By the way, to the person who commented that the public school down the street is “drug ridden” which school are you referring to & would you please offer some proof of that?
can you say BigBrother?
October 9th, 2012
10:01 pm
All – the *real* reason Woodward is doing this drug testing (not just students, but the very invasive random hair testing of ALL faculty and staff, and *supposedly* of the administration and board) is to lower their insurance premiums. Pure and simple. They just won’t come out and say it, instead brandishing the flag of “It’s for the children!”. Complete and utter BS! Who cares what the housekeeping, kitchen and grounds-crew staff does on weekends… they do an EXCELLENT job for which they are most likely very underpaid. Now they also have to submit to the indignity of possibly monthly (!) hair-cuts for drug testing. Same for the teaching faculty. There has NOT been any reported case of a faculty member being disciplined and/or dismissed for any sort of substance abuse (Dr. Gulley confirmed this at a meeting!) – nevertheless, faculty will be demeaned by being subjected to potentially monthly hair drug tests. Then they will have to reveal their entire medical history to the testing company in case they test ‘positive’ for some prescription drug. And the administration brags that it’s only going to cost them $15,000 / year to do this. Why? The savings on insurance. The reason they *say* it has to be done? “To set a good example for the children”. Ahem…. right…
All I can say is Woodward will never again be on the top 10 places to work in Atlanta. Treat your customers (students/parents) and your employees like crap? Well – there are plenty of excellent schools in town.