Should School Districts Drug-Test Teachers?

[VagabondGE]

blah blah blah . . . other jobs should clearly be given only to the perpetually sober: We don't want our railroad operators or nuclear-plant employees to be smoking up on the job. Blah blah blah . . .

Logic error . . .

If you don't want them smoking up on the job, that doesn't mean they have to be sober 24 hours every day. I stopped reading after that.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Pretty flimsy rationale behind requiring these for teachers any way you look at it.

I'm in full cynic mode now, so here's the rationale as I see it:

Drug testing, and/or canning people with a drug conviction, smacks to me of making an excuse to thin the applicant pool / make budget-necessitated staffing cuts. Plus, at the same time, it's a move that makes the school district look good in the eyes of the public. (If this sounds too harsh, watch John Q. Sixpack's eyebrows shoot up when you ask him if he'd mind a drug user in charge of his child.) So it kills two birds with one stone. Sounds devilishly ingenious from the school's, and local government's, point of view.

Bottom line: anti-drug laws and policies are kept and enforced, and public fear of drugs is pandered to, because doing so affords the powers-that-be a lot of conveniences.

In the US, top level law enforcement bodies have done the math, and have soundly concluded that they have more profits to reap by marijuana's illegality, than its legality. Sad but true.

 

[ranunky]

^
I think it's just illicit drugs.

That reveals their true motives for testing then. If worry about people being intoxicated on the job was their motivation for testing like they say, then they would be tested for alcohol too. It is an excuse to invade peoples private lives and discriminate based on what they find.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^ Yep, you get it. It's a hoop to jump through.

Could be worse. We're not China under Mao, where a teacher or other public sector employee even rumored to be using drugs would have been sent down to be reeducated in a rural village through years of hard labor.

But the US has all the mechanisms in place for a fine police state -- probably a better one than China ever was if it tried hard enough. And little things like this are a good reminder of that. Personal freedom is something earned by being good at keeping your mouth shut and flying under the radar.

 

[StaffWriter]

I seriously doubt the NEA, a prominent teacher's union, will ever allow teachers to get drug tested. But I always assumed, just like with most professional jobs, that teachers got tested when hired by a county. Sucks though, just like some folks say, I just don't believe in drug testing when it comes to jobs that don't require operating dangerous or heavy equipment.

 

[Roger&Me]

I do not believe that teachers should be drug tested. I do, however, believe that they should receive better pay for the work they do. This would ensure higher standards which would maintain a highly professional atmosphere. Better teachers help mold children into good people; conversely, under-qualified teachers can do psychological harm to children.

 

[Care]

This is so incredibly stupid. The fact that they arent able to identify these "bad" teachers without drug testing is evidence that occasional drug use doesnt effect their ability to teach. One of the best teachers I had in high shool was a drug user. However he never let that interfere with his teaching at all.

What we really need to be testing for is religion in our science teachers, that is the real scourge if you ask me.

 

[qwe]

In my experience as a biology/chemistry teacher, the ones to watch for dodgy behaviour were the teachers who didn't use any recreational drug (I include alcohol & tobacco in that grouping); it's a stressful job, especially when the government keeps moving the goalposts/putting more paper pushing etc on teachers rather than actually letting them teach & as such, teachers who didn't use something as a form of release at the weekend were the ones most likely to be involved in something like assaulting a kid (I have witnessed that happen twice - never a serious assault, more grabbing a kid and pushing them up against a wall while issuing threats if they continue to misbehave, but both times the teacher losing it was a teetotal, religious sort), or worse. Admittedly in the majority of cases the intoxicant was alcohol (I've seen the head of science, who was a really good teacher, at the last school I taught at so shitfaced at the xmas party that he was probably more pickled than the specimens in the biology prep room ), but there was always at least a couple of science teachers (other than me!) who induged in more exotic substances and to be quite honest they had a much better relationship with the kids and as a rule got some of the best work from the kids purely through being more open minded.

I fully agree that anybody who repeatedly comes into work intoxicated shouldn't be in such a responsible position, but if I had kids, I'd much rather their teachers were open minded and say took psychedelics at the weekend than never took anything, but were so tightly wrapped that they were a ticking time bomb, as the latter seem to discourage any thinking/discussion outside the very narrow confines of their subject. I only have to remember one of the two teachers I mentioned above trying to have a lesson about reproduction in humans and it being a travesty due to their anally retentive & uptight demeanour because it involved sex (it was a catholic school, so you can imagine what sort of fucked up affair it was having a guilt ridden devout catholic trying to explain sexual behaviour to 15/16 year olds. It would have been hilariously funny if it wasn't so bloody serious)

agree fully. also, there is the issue of dependency; what if the teacher has to take a dose to feel normal, but doesn't get high?

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

that's an excellent perspective, f&b. I'm starting to get the sense that what you said regarding substances and teachers staying sane, applies to doctors as well. I know there's a rift between doctors who think it's perfectly acceptable to augment one's brain, and those who find the idea dispicable. It wouldn't surprise me if I later found that the more mellow and well-adjusted docs were the ones who enjoyed a bit of chemical fun from time to time, and the ones who were more 'straight laced' were the ones more likely to turn a bit psycho. ("Begbie didn't do drugs. He did people.")

Frankly, I think using chemicals to unwind from a stressful job can be a much healthier option than a lot of other activities people partake in for the purpose of blowing off steam. Addiction is a real risk and is nothing to take lightly. But nonetheless, I think responsible drug use is a very useful and psychologically healthy activity for many working professionals.

 

[LoveAlways]

omg I cannot even begin to express how much I abhor Lingle-that stupid cunt bitch!

Everyday I see her ugly face on the news talking about how she's cutting jobs, benefits and raises, etc for government workers so she can cover her ass on a 1.8 billion dollar deficit and then this??

Judge Joseph Goodwin of the U.S. District Court noted that it costs about $44 a pop to do urine tests, which would cost the West Virginia school district in question about $37,000 a year. (Here's a PDF of Goodwin's preliminary injunction against drug testing.) That same $37,000 could easily pay for a full-time teacher, meaning that drug testing would have to be sufficiently valuable to displace an entire teaching position.

Get your fucking priorities straight!!!!


gRRRRR!! I can't wait till her term is over next year

 

[edarrin]

teachers aren't DT'ed?

You know there are places on earth where no one is drug tested.


At least people are given the general assumption they are able to do their job and if this is so they are pretty much left alone. I'm sure there are some jobs where it is mandatory (thinking police,CSIS, maybe EMS) but it is not really a big thing here in Canada( at least so far).

If it comes to someones attention there is a problem then something like testing might be worked out as a condition of employment or something. Not as if you can show up for work wasted either.

 

[fatallyflawed]

DRUG TESTING IS AN INVASION OF PRIVACY AND DIRECTLY VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION.
That said, I disagree with any drug testing. Period.

I totally agree that while what I do in the confines of my own home should have no effect on my job if I am professional and do my job to it's standards. My job should clearly be based on it's performance and my conduct.

but *sigh* the unfortunate argument they always throw with the invasion of privacy is that you signed the contract giving them the right to drug test you.

But Finder was absolutly right, testing is incredibly flawed as it only detects one drug after that 48 hour weekend window,which is weed. So your trip to Amsterdam just fucked you.

Thats how I stayed out of trouble in the military, avoided weed.

 

[maloxx]

I agree that there are some professions in which some people shouldn't use drugs, but teaching? how can that hurt if a teacher tokes up a bit after school? I've known a fair amount of teachers that could use it

 

[xxi135]

is this just HS teachers, or are college professors also drug tested?

I think it should be left the the descretion of the person as to whether or not they want to use drugs in their free time. I could see if a teacher came to school drugged up and attacked a student then they should be let go, but some people function better with drugs in their life. As stated above what you do on a friday night should not have to be governed by your job.

 

[rant*N*rave]

last i checked, driving transportation is an essential part of life-- no driving, riding, or walking and you're perfectly safe but you can't even go to work.

...since when has consuming illicit substances been a prerequisite to work?

Driving a car isn't a prerequisite to any job. I managed to go to college and work two jobs without a car just fine. Transportation =/= Car. And moreover, I take psychoactive chemicals every day that are MUCH stronger than many recreational drugs and in a MUCH higher dose than I would take those recreational drugs. Mine are prescribed. But I don't see why that should make a difference either. Psychoactive is psychoactive. Alcohol is no different, so it shouldn't be treated differently.

meaning they can do pretty much everything in their power to stop teachers from engaging in illegal activity, on or off the job. ( for some reason this sentence reminds me of all those middle school teachers engaging in sexual relationships with their students AFTER school and OUTSIDE of school, but still were fired from their position and had legal action taken against them.)

That's because those students go to that school, and teachers performing illegal sex acts on ANY minor would be bad enough. There's no analogy here. Teachers having a couple beers after work doesn't pose any problem. Why should smoking a joint?

i hate that fact, but, unfortunately, it is a fact.

The FACT is that it's unconstitutional. But that hasn't bothered anyone in the US lately...

 

[Mona Lisa]

In my experience as a biology/chemistry teacher, the ones to watch for dodgy behaviour were the teachers who didn't use any recreational drug (I include alcohol & tobacco in that grouping); it's a stressful job, especially when the government keeps moving the goalposts/putting more paper pushing etc on teachers rather than actually letting them teach & as such, teachers who didn't use something as a form of release at the weekend were the ones most likely to be involved in something like assaulting a kid (I have witnessed that happen twice - never a serious assault, more grabbing a kid and pushing them up against a wall while issuing threats if they continue to misbehave, but both times the teacher losing it was a teetotal, religious sort), or worse. Admittedly in the majority of cases the intoxicant was alcohol (I've seen the head of science, who was a really good teacher, at the last school I taught at so shitfaced at the xmas party that he was probably more pickled than the specimens in the biology prep room ), but there was always at least a couple of science teachers (other than me!) who induged in more exotic substances and to be quite honest they had a much better relationship with the kids and as a rule got some of the best work from the kids purely through being more open minded.

I fully agree that anybody who repeatedly comes into work intoxicated shouldn't be in such a responsible position, but if I had kids, I'd much rather their teachers were open minded and say took psychedelics at the weekend than never took anything, but were so tightly wrapped that they were a ticking time bomb, as the latter seem to discourage any thinking/discussion outside the very narrow confines of their subject. I only have to remember one of the two teachers I mentioned above trying to have a lesson about reproduction in humans and it being a travesty due to their anally retentive & uptight demeanour because it involved sex (it was a catholic school, so you can imagine what sort of fucked up affair it was having a guilt ridden devout catholic trying to explain sexual behaviour to 15/16 year olds. It would have been hilariously funny if it wasn't so bloody serious)

This

 

[Captain.Heroin]

DRUG TESTING IS AN INVASION OF PRIVACY AND DIRECTLY VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION.
That said, I disagree with any drug testing. Period.

Plus can we really afford to be spending MONEY on drug tests for any public worker in this economy?? Oh right! More drug tests... more convictions... more people in jail... more money from the jail system... and the Hypocritical circle continues. Probation is totally working. RANT END

Karma summed it up.

I agree wholeheartedly. +1

 

[Huaca]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"The Bill of Rights originally only restricted the power of the federal government. However, in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to state governments by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, all state constitutions contain an analogous provision." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

But other jobs should clearly be given only to the perpetually sober: We don't want our railroad operators or nuclear-plant employees to be smoking up on the job. So it seems appropriate that U.S. employees in those high-risk positions are routinely subjected to random drug testing.

The original poster's article is based on a false premise: If intoxication while on the job is prohibited then the employee must also be prohibited from using intoxicants while off the job during non-working hours in the the employee's own home.

Exception is made for legal drugs like alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs. Why make exception for off-duty use of legal drugs? There should be no drug testing unless a person is involved in an auto accident or where his behavior clearly shows he is intoxicated and a danger to others.

According to the Constitution, there should be no searches without a search warrant supported by probable cause. The 4th Ammendment does not permit random searches. Furthermore, drug prohibition itself is unconstitutional. It's a shame we don't have a Constitution anymore. People got to be free.

 

[manic_panic]

of course they should be drug-tested...if i had kids i wouldn't want my childrens' teacher fucked up and teaching. that's retarded and completely irresponsible. if they have a hit or somethin after work thats different, but that may have to take the risk you take to get high and hold that kind of job.

 

[SmokingFrog84]

I noticed this mistake in the article:

The authors theorize that drug-using kids may think that prescription and other drugs are harder to detect by urinalysis, so they switch from pot to something else. (This assumption is usually incorrect — most drug tests capture everything from heroin to Valium — although certain lesser-used drugs like the anesthetic ketamine aren't detected by the usual tests.)

The statement is technically true b/c the author says "usually" incorrect, however it is misleading to insinuate that Cannabis is equally detectable as Rx drugs. While they are equally detectable while in the body, this statement neglects to account for the fact that Prescriptions (and MOST "hard" drugs) usually metabolize in a couple of days, as opposed to marijuana which we all know takes 2-4 weeks.

This leads people to the very accurate conclusion that it is easier to dodge drug tests with Rx's or hard drugs very simply b/c if tests are randomized, you have a way, way smaller chance of getting caught. Somewhat ironic that one of the most harmless drugs is the easiest to catch people using, but this is the reality.

Obviously, this post does not apply to other forms of testing, such as hair, which leaves what one could call a "fossil" record of drug habits.