WTE Home
55°F
Cloudy
5 Day Forecast
HOME NEWS | SPORTS | OPINION | OBITUARIES | CLASSIFIEDS | COMMUNITY | REAL ESTATE | SUBSCRIBER | ADVERTISING | WEB SERVICES | CONTACT US | RSS

Most Commented

Local News Updates

Story Tools

Printable Version | Email This Story | Smaller Text Text Size Larger Text | 45 comment(s)

Could teachers be drug tested?

By Becky Orr
borr@wyomingnews.com

CHEYENNE n Laramie County School District 1 does not have a policy to randomly test teachers for drugs.

Whether it could happen rests more with decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court than the school district.

Last week, federal authorities arrested a teacher and a teacher’s assistant in Cheyenne on drug-related charges.

In light of that, LCSD1 will review how it supervises, hires, evaluates and monitors employees, Superintendent Ted Adams said Tuesday. “We need to review all our processes,” he said.

Officials also will look at whether it would be possible to randomly test employees, he added, noting there have been barriers to doing that in the past.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in different cases that subjecting government employees to random tests violates their privacy and creates unlawful search and seizure.

John Lyttle, LCSD1 assistant superintendent of human resources, has asked lawyers for the district to review the question.

Adams said that if it’s legally feasible to move forward with a drug-testing policy, the district could do so.

“The district is devastated by any kind of allegation like this,” Adams said.

“I clearly, from my personal perspective, would be happy to have drug testing” of everyone in the district on a random basis, Adams said. “But there are challenges associated with doing that kind of testing,” he said, referring to past court decisions.

The district “clearly needs to look at the options to protect children and to protect the institution and build our trust with parents,” he added.

LCSD1 does drug and alcohol tests on employees for cause. The district can test employees if there is a suspicion of drug use.

If a person refuses to take the test for cause, it’s considered a positive test. The employee is subject to discipline, including firing, Lyttle said.

Federal law requires districts to randomly test bus drivers or any employee who transports children, Lyttle added.

Coming up with a random drug-testing policy is a job beyond the scope of the superintendent or school boards, Adams said. It would take enabling legislation at the state and national levels.

But the local district can raise the question, Adams said.

Random testing would not be a solution in itself, he cautioned. The practice wouldn’t catch drug dealers who aren’t users.

District officials hire the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation to do background checks before the district hires someone. LCSD1 officials also check a registry to screen potential employees for child abuse.

LCSD1 Trustee Al Atkins does not favor random drug testing for employees. He said he doesn’t think it is necessary.

“If we had a problem, I’d be in favor of it,” he said.

But Trustee Dale Vosler supports testing everyone, from the top on down. Whether it could happen depends on what the law will allow, he added.

“I think it is something the board certainly needs to discuss with Ted (Adams),” board Chairwoman Jan Stalcup said.

The school board needs to look at places that tried it and see how it worked, she said.

“It’s something we need to look at seriously,” Stalcup said. “We take the safety of our children very seriously.”

Based on an Internet search, Hawaii is the first to enact a statewide mandatory drug-testing policy for school employees like teachers and administrative workers. The American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii plans to challenge the policy.

Linda Burt, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Wyoming, objects to random testing because it violates rights and isn’t cost effective.

“We have a lot of information that says random drug testing isn’t that effective,” she said.

“What is really effective is good employee human resources programs,” Burt said. These programs provide for education, treatment and good supervision of employees to spot problems and get help.

The city of Cheyenne, Laramie County and the state of Wyoming can require employees to do random drug tests if there is cause.

But only select groups of their employees n like those who work in safety jobs n are subject to random drug tests.

Rich Wiederspahn, director of human resources for the city of Cheyenne, said people applying for safety jobs n like police officers, firefighters and city bus drivers n must take drug tests before they are hired.

Employees in these jobs n and those with Commercial Driver’s Licenses n are subject to random drug tests. Other city employees are not.

An opinion from the Wyoming attorney general in June 2007 concluded it’s not reasonable to have random drug testing for public employees unless there is evidence of drug problems at work.

Emily Smith, human resources director for Laramie County, said people have to be drug tested before the county will hire them.

Only county employees who have CDL licenses in the Public Works Department are subject to random drug tests, she said.




Reader Comments

kpm. wrote on Apr 28, 2009 7:53 AM:

" Random drug testing would be a good thing for the school system, because why would you want your child to be with someone who had impared judgement? Your children are suppose to be safe at school. Their teachers shouldn't be taking a break form class to go shoot up or something. In order to apply for most jobs where you are only in charge of yourself you still have to take drug tests, like McDonald's, and grocery stores. Just Sayin'. "

Hard facts wrote on Mar 31, 2009 5:19 AM:

" Most of you are cross burning retards, but I do agree in that if you are applying for a state/federal job you had better have your head on straight. Drug testing is part of the role you applied for, BUT there are many people who are solid hard working employees that enjoy a toke from time to time. I am not saying they should be in charge of our childrens education, but before you start grinding you axe take a look at the alcohol to marijuana crime incedent ratio to include DWI.

Semper "

Tess wrote on Jul 13, 2008 2:17 PM:

" Of course teachers should be drug tested.No question.In our county,it is a drug free school zone!??So why is there no drug testing? Makes you wonder if they're afraid of how many teachers and teachers aides they'd be replacing.They drug test you to work in a grocery store,,but not tested to work with our children.How pathetic!Something is VERY wrong with this picture! "

politicaldisturbed wrote on Mar 30, 2008 9:56 PM:

" Nevermine all that, how about those that dont get tested when they should be, for exapmple my compnay where suppossed to test veryone only a few had repeated test done when other havent at all. "

UIN wrote on Feb 25, 2008 7:21 AM:

" This should be a free country but it is not. All I see here is people imposing religious and moral valus on others. Drugs are a personal choice. Personal means none of your business. If you want a drug free enviorment pay for one send your kids to a private school. If your child does not understand that free education is a privelege in this world and that life is a gift only during the present you are not doing your job. I dont use drugs and I dont hide my children from truth. I educate them on choices and probable outcomes. Your children are your responcibility so be responcibile for them. Every one wants to blam some one else for their denial of the truth. "

Dan wrote on Feb 20, 2008 10:05 AM:

" To 4th Amendment, are you kidding me? Anyone who refuses to allow a random test is either hiding something, unsure that something might be revealed, or is on a soap-box. Test me anytime you want, I have nothing to hide. Yes, the police can search my home any time they want, why? Because I have nothing to hide. Put a urinal that automatically tests my urine, guess why, because I have nothing to hide. You have something to hide... "

Cameron wrote on Feb 19, 2008 4:19 PM:

" Cheyenne Citizen, the government drug-tests its personnel all the time. School bus drivers and even substitutes have to pass drug tests now. Also, City, County, and State personnel have to pass drug tests. They call them "physicals" but for the last 20 years, I think we're all grown up enough to know what a "physical" is. Teachers, of all people should not be given special treatment in this regard. They should be drug-tested like other government employees. "

Leroy wrote on Feb 19, 2008 7:14 AM:

" Cheyenne Citizen...
What are u babbling about? I'm a federal employee and VERY SUBJECT to RANDOM DRUG TESTING.
And it is not invasive! And it does not FALSE TEST! There is a thorough questionaire that allows one to claim using legal drugs. And you're correct it does not catch every drug user, but it is one helluva a deterrent for most! AND why wait til there is a drug epidemic?? Have you ever heard the ol' saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"?
The district is 90% at fault in this case. Had they been a little more proactive with this "problem" teacher, this would not be the issue it is today. "

Tonjah wrote on Feb 18, 2008 11:52 AM:

" When I worked for LCSD #1 I was drug tested and had to pass a background check before I could start working. Does LCSD #1 not do that any more? "

Cheyenne Citizen wrote on Feb 18, 2008 1:19 AM:

" Government employees, like teachers, are different than private employees.The school district has to act within the bounds of the constitution, which limits what the government can do. Drug testing is invasive and personal (for example, it can involve disclosure of medications which may show up in tests, and can reveal medical conditions)and can result in false positives. Drug testing doesn't catch every drug user, and it isn't some kind of cure-all for the problems of employees using drugs. They are usually caught in other ways, as happened in this case, and there are plenty of ways that drug use can be detected already, especially since the district currently can test employees based on suspicion. There is nothing to suggest that there is an epidemic of drug using school employees or that drug testing them would fix everything. Obviously the district should try to detect and prevent drug use by its employees, but the issue of suspicionless drug testing is legally complicated.
It is understandable to want to do something about drug use, but the district should not be faulted for following the law or seeking advice of an attorney before proceeding in this sensitive issue. "

Cameron wrote on Feb 17, 2008 5:06 PM:

" Drug testing is not an invasion of privacy, any more than doing a physical is an invasion of privacy for kids entering sports. All kinds of jobs involve drug testing, and it is constitutional. Test the teachers. Fire the ones on drugs. Simple. "

Rico wrote on Feb 17, 2008 10:15 AM:

" Drug testing should be mandatory for ALL jobs. Kind of takes drugs out of the equation if you can't afford to buy them. Imagine our crime rate going down if drug users couldn't do the drugs (or deal with those whom offer them). "

Teachers Aide wrote on Feb 17, 2008 1:41 AM:

" If a person that cleans hotels/motels gets drug tested, a mini mart worker gets tested, why the heck shouldn't a teacher get tested, there shouldn't be a set group of people that aren't tested, claim the amendments if you want it only makes you look guilty,if you want the job who cares that you have to do these tests they should be required no matter what. You would require your doctor to have one wouldn't you, or would you prefer he snorted a couple of lines or smoked a few marijuana cigarettes before he performed heart surgery or brain surgery, we are talking about children, come on people get real! "

4th Amendment wrote on Feb 16, 2008 11:18 AM:

" Here is the problem: Honest, hard working teachers were hired by the district without an existing drug testing policy. If they are opposed to being drug tested, they shouldn't be. Drug testing is a very intimate sort of search and it is not something they signed up for when they committed to working for the district. What's next? Should we search their houses and cars? I agree that the district needs to implement a drug testing program for new hires. They know the rules when they start. Personally, I do not use drugs, but I am opposed to being tested by my current employer because this was not a condition of my employment when I was hired. I was given a thorough background check and several interviews to determine that I was qualified. If I was asked to start taking random drug tests, my first call would be to my attorney.

I know a lot of you, including teachers, will say "why not take the test if you have nothing to hide?" Would you let the police search your home without a warrant? I wouldn't. The Bill of Rights gets stepped on too much these days. "

School Bus driver wrote on Feb 15, 2008 9:01 PM:

" I am a LCSD#1 Bus driver and we are required to do drug tests randomly because of DOT regulations. We have no problem with this why should any of the other school district employees have a problem with this. If they do not have anything to hide why worry about whether the test is an invasion of their privacy. It should be something that all of us working with children should volunteer to do without the threat of a civil rights lawsuit. "

dont forget the kids wrote on Feb 15, 2008 7:36 PM:

" I think everyone the works should be drug tested. And When you stop to get gas why not drug test you then too. You would not want anyone with drugs in their system, legal or even illegal prescription drugs driving in town. Investigate all the doctors that give out prescriptions out like crazy. Drug test the doctors also. They work with the public.
Start with The city and county and state government employees. Forget random. Make it when mandatory when you pick up your check. If you test positive, no check. Get breathalysers to field test everyone coming to work. That might cut down on the bar closers that come to work all hung over.
Maybe Check points on Yellowstone and some on Del Range. Or I forgot armed Check points. "

loves teaching wrote on Feb 15, 2008 5:14 PM:

" Drug testing for school district employees isn't a bad idea. I just wish we could also do something about the poor parenting received by some of our students. Teachers and parents should ALL be living according to the highest standards. "

Beano wrote on Feb 15, 2008 4:09 PM:

" To arbitrarily sterotype any group of individuals, based on the actions of one or two, is not a mature way of thinking. Next, you be an advocate of all LCSD#1 employees attending AA Meetings if a teacher gets a DUI. How realistic is that? How many parents think nothing of having a couple of alcoholic beverages, then driving their children to the movies? Suddenly, the safety of their children isn't such a huge issue after all. "

Brandi Hoff wrote on Feb 15, 2008 8:06 AM:

" I'm not afraid to put my name on this post because I feel strongly enough about this issue. Teachers have a right to privacy. If they choose to teach, they need to sign a consent for random drug testing. It is their choice to teach. If you do not want to be in a position of trust, do not chose a profession that requires drug testing. There needs to be an immediate action on this issue. I do not believe there is a widespread drug problem with our teachers but it only takes one. One to be high on methamphetamine, to become paranoid and hurt a child. It only takes one to have a drug dealer who is owed money come to the school looking for payment. Kudos for the teachers posting that they are ready and willing. It is reassuring to know their education and intelligence understands the concern for the children. Teachers spend equal waking hours per day with our children than a lot of parents can. That is reality. "

Wyorebel wrote on Feb 15, 2008 7:35 AM:

" Testing for drugs should be done for all employees of LCSD. "

Michael Milliron wrote on Feb 14, 2008 5:41 PM:

" I'm all for it, along with drug testing in all of our restaurants as well fore they don't require such testing and they should fore after twenty-eight years in Cheyenne I know that I have seen and have known of my fare share of dopers that have taken the integrity out of my chosen profession. And it should be random at places such as Wal-Mart DC , Lowes DC , State , County and City Employees as well fore they suppose to live to a higher standard when representing Wyoming at each level. "

Rational wrote on Feb 14, 2008 11:43 AM:

" I have an idea how about we make a chip that we can implant into every man, woman, and child. I think everyone should be watched every second of the day. When the chip senses that the person is doing something wrong it sends a small electric shock to the heart, stopping it. Gosh just imagine how safe everyone would be.

Wake up people. Why do you ask for a police state? It is already coming and you will be the first ones crying when its here.
"

district employee wrote on Feb 14, 2008 10:49 AM:

" I am not only an employee of LCSD#1 but a Mother of 3 students... please drug test us!!! It is unfortunate that we have to worry about drugs in our schools from the people that are working with our kids, but obviously we do, and therefore it's a no-brainer, test us all!! "

Wiseguy wrote on Feb 14, 2008 10:18 AM:

" Huked on Fonics werked gooder fer me! "

truth hurts! wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:54 AM:

" DRUG TESTING SHOULD BE MANDATORY IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEMS. TOO MANY DOPEHEADS OUT THERE & THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING AROUND CHILDREN!! PERIOD!!! "

Drug testing wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:51 AM:

" If you research the internet, you will find that drug testing is far from perfect. Only federally certified labs can be fully accurate, and there are few of them. The costs are huge and tests must be repeated. False positives can occur and samples can be tampered with. Remember the recent incident in Cheyenne where a teacher had her coffee spiked with eye drops? How much imagination is needed for a student to spike an unfavored teacher with a drug that will be picked up on a test? In the current climate, even being tested will cause suspicion of guilt? Do you really want this? By the way, courts have often upheld the rights of PRIVATE employers to drug test. That's why you might be tested while PUBLIC employees are only tested under some conditions. It's a legal thing. "

Cholakis wrote on Feb 14, 2008 6:38 AM:

" Random test is both legal and effective if properly implemented. Everyone in school systems and business should be tested to provide a sorely needed level of deterence and detection. "

gjs wrote on Feb 13, 2008 10:25 PM:

" Just a thought?
Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem.


What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting around doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

"

wyomingteacher wrote on Feb 13, 2008 9:32 PM:

" As a teacher in Wyoming, I understand peoples frustrations with this. I would always agree to be randomly drug tested, and think it is a great policy for anyone who works with children period. However, it is the right of the law not to have your privacy invaded. So it is a catch-22. Personally I am all for drug testing all people who work with children. "

patty wrote on Feb 13, 2008 8:47 PM:

" I agree with Drea, as I know of some working for the stste that should very well be checked for drugs and alcohal. Check the state,county also is bad, and I'm sure the city should be too. Sounds like a good idea--go for it!! "

It's Me! wrote on Feb 13, 2008 4:12 PM:

" Of course they should be drug tested. Why haven't they been drug tested all along? State workers that go for manual labor jobs have to be tested, why not teachers? "

Malcolm Tent wrote on Feb 13, 2008 4:02 PM:

" Sure, test them all, but be prepared to replace them all too. "

To Apex from Drea wrote on Feb 13, 2008 3:13 PM:

" So what, Wyoming doesn't have a state tax, we only have the six-penny tax. Oooh! It might go up to eight cents! BFD I'd pay $200 million dollars in taxs if it kept my kids safe! "

To while you're at it from Drea wrote on Feb 13, 2008 3:10 PM:

" Wow, can you say DRAMA QUEEN?!? Cut the dramatics, we're talking about people who work with kids under the County. Why are so so upset? You're raving like someone who's afraid to get busted themself. "

CHEYENNECOWGIRL wrote on Feb 13, 2008 2:42 PM:

" Heck I work at a financial institution and I have to do random drug tests! Why not the adults that are in charge of OUR CHILDREN?!?!?! "

AA wrote on Feb 13, 2008 1:36 PM:

" Test every employee and you should not be worried about the price when it comes to our kids. Every employee should be willing to, you cares about there rights when it comes to our kids. "

while you're at it wrote on Feb 13, 2008 12:05 PM:

" All of the fast food workers should be drug tested as well. And why not throw in some city police and politicians while we were at it. Hey, I have an idea, why not just go door to door and drug test everyone in America randomly just for the heck of it. That'll show em. In fact, why not set up survalliencee cameras in everyones private residence so we can catch em in the act. That aught to solve all of Americas problems. And take their firearms away too cause this aint no free country.
"

RICH wrote on Feb 13, 2008 11:53 AM:

" TEACHERS ARE NOT ABOVE ANYONE ELSE AND YES, THERE SHOULD BE MANDATORY TESTING OF EVERY SCHOOL IN THE CITY AS WELL AS LCCC. "

Mr. Bill wrote on Feb 13, 2008 10:21 AM:

" Linda Burt summed it up... “What is really effective is good employee human resources programs”.
Since that IS NOT the case at LSD1, drug testing is needed. From the top down, not just teachers. LCSD1 does drug and alcohol tests on employees for cause. The district can test employees if there is a suspicion of drug use.
AND MR. LYTTLE, "if a person refuses to take the test for cause, it’s considered a positive test. The employee is subject to discipline, including firing"
Then why is Ms. Mondello on PAID leave? Not enough cause justified yet?
Rationale like this is why the district needs drug testing. Starting at the top! "

Apex wrote on Feb 13, 2008 8:53 AM:

" I believe random testing should be mandatory for all public employees. Though I believe this, random drug testing will cost tax payers. Are you all ready to pay higher taxes? "

CHEYENNECOWGIRL wrote on Feb 13, 2008 8:36 AM:

" Who are these people that are against the school district doing random drug tests? (Probably the teachers doing drugs) I don't think I have met one person yet who is against this. DRUG TEST THEM ALL!!! "

Ray wrote on Feb 13, 2008 8:15 AM:

" I've been subject to random testing ever since the early 70's when I was in the Navy; and every company I've been employed at since. Why should teachers (or anyone who's salary that come's from our tax dollars) be exempt? "

Drea wrote on Feb 13, 2008 7:40 AM:

" I feel that anyone working for the city, county, state, or government should be randomly tested. Anyone working with disabled people or children should undergo a full backgroung search and random drug testing. But you know what they say about opinions... "

Ralphinphnx wrote on Feb 13, 2008 6:55 AM:

" You bet drug test every employee in the
school district for
drugs on a regular basis and on a spot
check basis to boot,
so the taxpayers can
get rid of drug addict school teachers
and administrators and
could we fire or hang
them if they refuse to
be tested as well? "

CHRISTINE wrote on Feb 13, 2008 6:37 AM:

" Random testing should be mandatory,when working with the public; children,elderly etc.. "

Leave Your Comments

(optional)
Current Word Count:
   

There is a 200 word limitation per post

Comments are not posted until after being approved by WTE staff.

Comments may be rejected by the WTE staff at their discretion.

The comments posted on the Reader Comments section are not necessarily those of the WTE.

If you would like to report an offensive post, please contact us.


Advertisement