School Board Discusses Drug Screening for Students and for Athletes | Eastern North Carolina Now

     The Beaufort County Board of Education, meeting in its regular monthly meeting Monday night (3-22-10) discussed revisions that have been recommended to its Drug Testing Policy 4280. You can hear the presentation in the three videos we present in a series of articles on this subject. We'll more or less allow the videos to provide you with the detailed action being considered by the School Board.

    But we would highlight the confusion in the policy, as illustrated by the comments of Chairman Belcher. The reason for that confusion appears to be rooted in the fact the policy mixes athletes and non-athletes.

    The policy states that in relation to non-athletes the test is not compulsory and if the student refuses the "offer" by a school administrator of taking the test the fact that he/she refuses to submit to the test cannot be used to punish them for simply refusing to take the test. However, the non-athlete could still be punished if the administrator has sufficient evidence to prove a violation of another policy (Section 21 of the Student Code of Conduct, Page 17) which prohibits use or possession of illegal drugs or alcohol.

    The confusion comes when you mix athletes and non-athletes under the same policy.

    For athletes there are two differences: First, the testing is random and does not rest on the school having a "particularized" suspicion that a specific student has violated the drug/alcohol prohibition. The can test athletes at random whether they have any reason to suspect drug use or not. And secondly, the athlete is not suspended from school, only from participating in athletics if they refuse to take the test or fail the drug test.

    Or to put it another way, Beaufort County Schools does not subject non-athletes to compulsory, random drug testing. But if the administrator has sufficient cause to believe a specific student has used drugs or alcohol then the administrator can "offer" the student a chance to take the test. But if he/she refuses they have to have other proof of drugs or alcohol use before punishing the non-athlete.

    You can hear this discussion in this video clip from the meeting:

As you will hear in the video, what the board is considering is a revision to a policy it adopted a couple of years ago. But since that time there has been a major Court of Appeals case that, as we have said, raises serious questions about random testing, or "non-particularized" searches. However that case dealt with school employees rather than students. So the question becomes: If random drug screening of students is challenged will it be upheld? You can read more about that in this article.

    Tomorrow, we will have Part II of the School Board's discussion of the drug screening program in Beaufort County Schools.

    Commentary

    We understand why Chairman Belcher is confused by this policy, and we expect a number of other people will be also. We think his point is well taken that the wording needs to be cleaned up or we would suggest that the section dealing with non-athletes be removed and put in the Student Code of Conduct, which applies to all students.

    But the thing that we found most disconcerting was Mr. Belcher's comments that seem to us to suggest that he possesses a mindset that if a principal accuses a student of violating a rule that you can pretty much count on the student being punished, whether he actually violated the specific rule or whether the proper procedures were used to punish him/her.

    That is an awful position for a school board chairman to express, much less a professional educator...and one trained to be an administrator no less.

    His comments indicate to us at least that he presumes any student accused of a violation to be guilty, regardless of the evidence or when proper due process procedures were applied. That is the essence of arbitrary and capricious action and has absolutely no place in the administration of our schools.

    It is disappointing to think that a school board chairman would preside over a due process hearing with no more knowledge of School Law than these comments illustrate.

    Were this the first or only instance of Mr. Belcher displaying a intolerable ignorance of School Law it would be different. But we saw exactly the same incompetence from him in the Eastern Transfer Case and in the Southside Riot Case. And he was just recently quoted in the New York Times more or less saying the same thing...that the justification for a demonstrably unjust punishment was not what the student did, but what the principal thought about that student. Here's the quote: "Robert Belcher, chairman of the school board, said in an interview that the principal had placed them among the "most egregious" violators and that he would not second-guess that judgment."

    For any school board person--one who is duty bound to sit as an appeal panel--to review the legality of school administrative actions to suggest that because a student is accused he is going to be punished is really astounding to put it mildly. But for the chairman to demonstrate such gross incompetence of one of his most important jobs is beyond the pale.

    Delma Blinson writes the "Teacher's Desk" column for our friend in the local publishing business: The Beaufort Observer. His concentration is in the area of his expertise - the education of our youth. He is a former teacher, principal, superintendent and university professor.
Go Back


Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )




Consider this a Welcome to Aspiring Curmudgeons and other Communicators. Teacher's Desk, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics School Board Discusses Drug Screening for Students and Athletes, Part II


HbAD0

Latest Op-Ed & Politics

Pope Francis lambasted leftist gender ideology during an address this week, warning that it presented an extreme danger to mankind.
amnesty would just encourage more illegal aliens to storm our borders
The Christmas candy was barely off the shelves when the Valentine’s candy appeared. Red and pink hearts with caramel and nut-filled chocolate goodness caught our eye. We are reminded of how we love love. Young love, especially.
far left sugar daddy has also funded anti-Israel groups and politicians in US
Be careful what you wish for, you may get it
America needs to wake up and get its priorities right
Former President Donald Trump suggested this week that if he becomes president again, he might allow Prince Harry to be deported.
It's a New Year, which means it's time to make resolutions — even for prominent evangelical leaders. The Babylon Bee asked the following well-known figures in the faith what they hope to accomplish in 2024:

HbAD1

 
Back to Top