facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

Area superintendents weigh in on drug policies



Published: Tue, March 18, 2014 @ 12:05 a.m.

photo

Lazzeri

By Kalea Hall

khall@vindy.com

In Austintown, the school district has implemented a drug policy for new hires.

And in Boardman, the district is going to consider a policy for new employees.

But in Canfield, district officials believe there is no need for a policy.

“We want to make sure new hires are clean when they come into the district,” Austintown Schools Superintendent Vincent Colaluca said.

Austintown implemented the program in February after the board voted in favor of it. Any person seeking employment in the school district, who goes through the interview process and will be presented as a recommendation to the board by the superintendent, will be required to take a drug test at the potential hiree’s expense. The test costs $22.

There is no law mandating school districts to drug test potential employees.

“It doesn’t really surprise me, and I do think it should be up to the individual school to decide,” said state Senate Minority Leader Joe Schiavoni of Boardman, D-33rd.

Schiavoni served on the education committee for the Ohio Senate before becoming the minority leader.

“I have never heard that before, and I have never heard about the necessity of that,” he said.

Five athletes are still tested randomly each week, but the Austintown district is considering a drug test as a requirement for those who drive to school and also looking at extracurricular activities.

There is a general drug-testing fee of $10, which every athlete has to pay. The district’s drug-policy committee decided to stick with urine samples and not hair samples. Parents also can volunteer their children to take a drug test.

“The random test really works for us right now,” Colaluca said.

In Boardman, there is a voluntary drug-testing policy for students in place; however, the board will give the first reading to a drug policy at the March 24 board meeting. The drug policy was created by a committee established to work to revise the current board policy.

The new policy would require students wishing to play a sport, participate in extracurricular activities, go to a dance or drive to school to provide a hair sample for a hair drug test — because it provides a better look backward into a person’s drug use. The test would look for six drugs.

“I think given the choice between marijuana and football, I think they will choose football,” Boardman schools Superintendent Frank Lazzeri said. “They will choose life.”

The tests would be paid for first by the district, and if a student is re-tested, it will be at the parents’ expense. The policy would probably cost the district $20,000, Lazzeri said.

“We are trying to help kids make better decisions,” Lazzeri said. “We believe that there is not just a local drug problem, there is a national drug problem.”

Lazzeri said he has had discussions with the board of education about implementing a new-hire drug policy, but it has not officially been put before the board.

“I am surprised something hasn’t happened statewide,” Lazzeri said.

In Canfield schools, there are no drug-testing policies in place.

“We will evaluate it in the future, but we do not feel the public is asking for it at this point,” Canfield schools Superintendent Alex Geordan said.

Geordan believes that if he as the superintendent does a thorough job “vetting” the individual the district plans on hiring, then the issue of the person having a drug or alcohol problem will be found.

“We value that investment, and it is a large investment to put someone in front of the board to hire,” he said. “The most important piece is hiring for a superintendent.”


Comments

1FreedomTruth(28 comments)posted 6 months ago

Because his article has so many “straw-man” arguments in it, it would take a book to explain them all. It sounds as if Mr. Colaluca is part of the fading “Harry Anslinger” neo-Nazi movement from the “Reefer Madness” era.
Alas, it appears that many of the board members have succumbed to some of the false tacit lies which permeate the “drug war”. Such as:
1) That "drug use" is understood to only refer to drugs that are "illicit".
2) That using "legal" drugs does not count as drug use.
3) That any use at all, under any circumstances, is "abuse".
4) That zero tolerance prohibition is the only acceptable policy.
5) That availability "promotes" use. So....what about tobacco, etc ??
Clearly, “drug testing” proves nothing, especially for marijuana. The test for marijuana (cannabis) looks for inactive metabolites which only indicate historical usage. Testing for the other drugs found in a typical “drug panel” may show recent ingestion, but does not show or indicate impairment! The main reason for testing has come down to the proliferation of the failed “drug war” and for revenue. Did any journalist inquire if any of the board members had relatives, friends or acquaintances in the drug testing business?
I am disappointed that members of the applicable communities would allow these unconstitutional heinous searches, without probable cause, to be permitted.

Suggest removal:

2L0L(660 comments)posted 6 months ago

Wow.

Rebuttle:
1. Drugs are drugs, not just the "illicit" ones.
2. Using "legal" drugs IS drug use if they are being abused.
3. Depends on the drug. Again, if the drugs are legal, ie; prescription, as long as they're not being "abused" then it's not abuse.
4. How is zero tolerance not the only acceptable policy?! These are kids! They should not be using drugs at all. And as far as the workers go they should not be around the kids if they are drug users. I'm not saying that an individual who uses marijuana recreationally at home is not responsible (im not going to get into the marijuana argument) but its a slippery slope. Maybe they're smoking before school, maybe someone has a cocaine habit, do you want those people around kids?
5. As far as tobacco goes we'll worry about it when it's illegal. There are anti-tobacco campaigns out there so that will suffice until that changes.

How can you say that drug testing proves nothing? It proves whether an individual has consumed an illegal drug. Now you didn't specify whether your argument was against testing the workers or students however at this point in time drugs that are illegal are illegal, period. They should not be consumed by workers who are around and or responsible for the kids.
And testing has nothing to do with the failed "drug war", it has to do with students being given a positive message and not letting the workers responsible for the kids consuming drugs that may, or may not, affect their job. The purpose of testing IS to see recent ingestion and not impairment. The goal is DRUG FREE not whether a person is impaired or not.

And as far as "umconstitutional searhces" go, its simple. Kids in school do not have rights. As far as the workers go its also simple. If you want to work here pee in a cup. If not, then don't don't apply to work here. Pretty simple huh?

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport