Teachers Pee, too

Some discussion about mandatory drug testing of teachers has come up in the wake of a series of arrests of Houston ISD teachers on drug possession charges.  The Houston Chronicle story is here.

Because drug testing implicates constitutional privacy rights, it is not legal to mandate drug tests in all cases.  With regard to the issues discussed in the article, pre-employment testing would almost certainly be legal.  Mandatory testing of current teachers might be legal, but only after changes to district policy and only for teachers who sign new contracts after the drug testing policy is adopted. 

Still, there are many practical problems with drug testing, not least of which is the cost.  Cost, however, is only one of many potential problems. And in truth, drug testing is not necessary to remove a teacher who is actually impaired in the classroom.  On the other hand, while it may be embarrassing for a district to have teachers arrested for drug possession, is it any less embarrassing to find drug-using teachers through urine testing?  If there are teachers engaged in illegal activity, the school will be embarrassed no matter how it is discovered.   But put mandatary drug testing in place, and every single teacher on staff, whether there is a single drug-using teacher or not, will be embarrassed at having to pee under scrutiny to prove their law abiding nature. 

Would you be happy to undergo drug testing (which is almost always done by supervised urinalysis) just to "be sure?" 

Comments

[Steve Jones]

Why should teachers be exempt from the same type of common safety practices prevelant in just about every other profession? Currently, School districts can randomly test 'at-will' employees or those staff members deemed to be in safety senstitive positions. I would propose that in today's post-Columbine world an educator in charge of our children is in a constant safety position when they have direct supervisory control over our children. I have a real problem with an entire segment of people hiding behind the 2nd ammendment when the kids they are teaching are required to submit to these tests once they enter the work force. Good for the goose - good for the gander. Lead by example not by exception.

[Darrell Stafford]

A student cursed me & tried repeatedly to fight me while I escorted him to the office, interpreting everything I said on the way as a provoking insult which he was justified to respond to. No physical contact on my part, though he tried. Now I'M suspended while my principal takes it outside the school for legal advice. Is that necessary when it's clear the student's behavior is at issue here and not me?

[Pam]

May not be necessary, but it may also not be as clearcut as you think, since witnesses may not have seen the entire incident. Depending on what the student is now alleging, it may be smart for the principal to make sure this is handled by the book, which protects you as well. As agravating as it seems, I'd way rather see an abundance of caution by the admin than to see caution floating away on the wind. Much better for the teachers that way.