 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Dano
Date: 2007-07-31 13:26
That's great. Maybe they can allow people that belong only to certain clubs or participate only in certain after school activities to join the H.S. band also. Why not see their credit history and how clean their room is? Why not have a behaviour test so no bullies join? Will something like this really make a positive difference or will it just make the 'drug crazed' teens seeking extracurricular activities more alienated than they ever were? Does anyone really think any teen will get help in order to join the band? What is the goal of this school district? To create more angry, unreasonable, antisocial kids and the parents that love them? Why not do something original and unheard of, if you can't preform to our standard, you can't join this activity? This is one of the many reasons we see less and less artistic qualities in musicians. There are a lot of people that would rather not join a group that is going to make them pee in a bottle, even if they have nothing to worry about.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2007-07-31 14:51
Dano wrote:
>Does anyone really think any teen will get help in order to join the band?
There are a lot of people that would rather not join a group that is going to make them pee in a bottle, even if they have nothing to worry about.<
These points are certainly valid, and I tend to be of a libertarian mind that in many areas the less government intrusion the better. However, these same teens will probably have to pee in a bottle in order to work at the local fast food joint.
I have a close family member who stepped back from the brink with alcohol in her thirties and a godson whose mom worries about losing him every day. As a mom of a 9-year-old who is passionate about football, I do believe that his engagement in academic and athletic pursuits will help him get through his teens. However, you bet I will want the support of the school and coaches if his grades slide or he gets into any type of illegal activities. I think when coaches pressure teachers to let the kid play anyway or make excuses because they want to win it does great damage to the youth involved. I think it is best if this support is kept at a personal level rather than coercive, though.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SVClarinet09
Date: 2007-07-31 15:37
Our school district just did the same thing. And now there is a special arts education form we HAVE to fill out, they're starting to treat us like athletes now. The Drug Testing in our county goes for all extracurricular activities though, even chess club
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: marzi
Date: 2007-07-31 15:42
Except band is a subject, not an extracurricular where we come from, this is stressed starting from the elementary school level on up, the grade counts.. I take Dano's side, where will it stop?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Granger
Date: 2007-07-31 15:58
I wonder what the longterm effects on someone's sense of self are of in essence treating everyone as a suspect - not just through this kind of testing, but through watching everyone in every public space via video cameras. Yes, it may deter some crime, but it also says, "don't do this because we are watching," and does nothing to encourage doing the right thing simply because it's the right thing to do. In other words, real "virtue" isn't promoted at all - and may even be undermined. What will people think of the kids who quit band, or those who play the trumpet but decline to join? I'd hate to be that kid. I do think this might have saved Woody Herman a certain amount of grief, though ...
Ed
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2007-07-31 16:17
Ed Granger wrote:
> Yes, it may deter some
> crime, but it also says, "don't do this because we are
> watching," and does nothing to encourage doing the right thing
> simply because it's the right thing to do. In other words, real
> "virtue" isn't promoted at all - and may even be undermined.
Absolutely, Ed. That's why I think it is far better for the parents and mentors of youths who care about them to give them the straight truth and work on helping them grow into healthy adults. If the power of the system is simply used in a "Gotcha" game, it will involve nearly all innocents and will probably not help the troubled youth in the long term. Of course, for the youth who is having substance abuse issues, accountability is crucial and probably will involve regular checks.
Post Edited (2007-07-31 16:25)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gwie
Date: 2007-07-31 17:20
And of course, drug tests are 100% effective, with no failures, no false positives, or methods by which to be deceived.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bmcgar ★2017
Date: 2007-07-31 17:40
Ed, I think you're right on about "suspects," but there's also something else going on that I think is the actual, but subliminal, reason for it all: the opportunity to exercise power over those who have no choice but to submit. Clarinetwife, I'm sorry, but as an SA counselor from time to time, the idea that all this drug testing is being done mostly for the sake of the kids is laughable (for reasons that I won't go into here).
Schools don't do it because they think it's going to help, but because parents force them to. Parent think it's going to have an significant positive effect on substance use, and it's an easy, tangible way to go. (When in doubt, do SOMETHING...even if it doesn't work.) So schools go along with it because they're forced to, and it protects them against law suits. However, more and more organizations and businesses that are in no real jeopardy of being injured require "voluntary" drug testing and "voluntary" credit checks and "voluntary" releases for background investigations for positions that have no significant monetary, informational, or physical "risk areas" that would warrant such things. Don't "volunteer," and you're blackballed.
This is even worse for those applying for lower-rung jobs, fast food or landscaping labor, for example. One of my students applied for a job with one of the big burger places, and was grilled (pun!) in three interviews about her school history, forced to have a drug test before the first interview, and her parents had to consent to credit and criminal investigations for both the girl and themselves. For a minimum wage job!
There will be those who will say that, if she didn't want to go through all of this stuff, she could have gone elsewhere for a job, but in U.S. society nowadays, there arent' that many places "elsewhere" to go for a high school kid looking for summer work.
I think that the motivation for drug testing, credit checking, etc. has very little to do with safety or "helping." Paranoia hidden under the guise of ensuring safety may have incited all of this, but what perpetuates it is even simpler: Exercising a legal sanction to wield power over those who have no choice but to submit.
"Just say no"? It's easier to just say no to drugs than it is to just say no, in the U.S., to institutionalized invasions into your personal life.
B.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2007-07-31 17:44
larryb wrote:
> Good thing that Jay McShann never had that policy
Or Wardell Gray
Or Charlie Parker
Or Chet Baker
Or Stan Getz
or...
...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2007-07-31 17:54
bmcgar -- I was actually referring to follow up with youths who are having problems. If somebody is in trouble with the law, I don't have a big problem with court ordered testing as part of probation. However, I quite agree that in general random testing is all about covering someone's a-- and not about the employee or the student. Certainly in the case of the school band it is a real stretch to justify such measures.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2007-07-31 18:03
It was bound to happen. Kids are getting into tons of trouble for drugs in HS. And you can't exclude a certain group therefore "discriminating" against other groups by forcing some, but not others to partake. So it's either random, all, or none.
Alexi
PS - Hey. My job was a test to get in, and can have a random test at any time while I'm employed.
The question will be "When will they start testing the junior high kids?"
PPS - In the town where I did my first 12 years of groing up (not a very good town), there had to be metal detectors in the high school, and middle school, and middle school girls are pregnant while the middle school boys average about a death a year due to fights (usually gang-related, often with firearms). So I'll oppose others on this forum and say, "I'm all for it." If it'll help keep kids (who I'm sure all of them weren't as mature as I was when I was in high school . . . and even THAT was pretty immature . . .) stay away from the temporary highs without fully realizing how it's gonna *&^$ up their future.
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kev182
Date: 2007-07-31 18:13
Why make a subject/extra curric. activity with diminishing popularity even less desirable to be a part of....wow....O_o
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Granger
Date: 2007-07-31 18:55
"Another side of the coin?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4556250/
Best regards,
jnk"
More like coins vs. stamps.
Ed
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dano
Date: 2007-07-31 19:17
I believe that if any drug, be it steroids or caffeine or nicotine or heroin or even an improper diet, is affecting the preformance of a student the school should take it up with the parents and have the parents make sure the child is free from unwanted drugs or diets while preforming extra curiccular activities. These are legally minors, are they not? I think testing every student in order to allow them to join the activity is not a positive action. Playing clarinet in the school band is quite different from being the quarterback for the school football team so steroids are another animal altogether. Those of us who were nerds and harassed by the football team know just how different the two are.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Granger
Date: 2007-07-31 19:27
Dano wrote:
>Those of us who were nerds and harassed by the
> football team know just how different the two are.
Well, I played clarinet of course, so I was also harrased by the brass section and the drum line.
Ed
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tim P
Date: 2007-07-31 20:09
As parents strive to get public money to pay for private education they will find all sorts of ways to eliminate the lower “less desirables” from the school.
And don’t forget that our industrial and commodity driven economy really needs these poorly educated to use feed the beast.
We really do not want too many people out there to use critical thinking skills as they try to digest the slop the “spin doctors” funnel us and call news and asking for full disclosure from our leading officials. we don't want them even knowing the word disclosure. Nor do we want uppity workers with crazy ideas like fair wages, decent work conditions. With the global economy we must do away with these ideas in order to compete. Don’t bring the rest of the world up to our standards, it much easier for us to step down.
By all means we should drug test and of course we must make good use of my favorite the ZERO tolerance law. In our local high school a senior honor student with no history of discipline problems was expelled (yes expelled not suspended) because on the band bus some alcohol was passed around. He had the misfortune of, not drinking any, but he passed it from one student to the other.
This is called distribution of controlled substance to a minor.
Automatic expulsion, zero tolerance, good bye.
With these two silly little laws we can do wonders as we try to shape the population of the schools. This is especially important in the fine and performing arts such as band. Appreciation for this sort of thing may stimulate the mind in unmentionable ways. My god!!!!!!! could you imagine what would happen if they stopped listening to gangster rap and learned to like classical music (yuck) We can’t have that. Come people wake up, this serious. Have you ever seen a chess club member all hopped up on pot. (not a pretty sight, I bet)
And certainly this must be done upon the arrest; we can not and must not wait for a conviction in a court of law. This will teach the students a valuable lesson that we as adults are just learning. We are still running around thinking that the government needs search warrants in order to wire tap our personnel phones, how foolish. And, really crazy things, like the government needs to actually charge us with a crime in order to hold us against our will. More rubbish. We must not let our children down like our parent did. We were so ill informed. Thank goodness that we have our country on a good path and good school districts like Cache are helping us stay there.
I apologize that this may seem off topic but I did mention the high school band.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Beck
Date: 2007-07-31 20:32
This “guilty until proven innocent” mentality is going beyond the kids. In order to volunteer at my daughter’s school, for the first time this year, parents had to go through financial, criminal and driving record checks. At first, we were even going to have to pay for them ourselves! They waved the fees when NOBODY volunteered. There is still a clause in the release saying they can reinvestigate whenever they want, forever! As far as the school is concerned, everybody (student and parent) is a suspect/doper/pervert until cleared, and even then they aren’t so sure.
While it gives the school protection from lawyers, what message does it send to the students? How about; “No one is trustworthy.” “Everybody lies and cheats.” “Big Brother is watching.” “It is our job to protect you from yourself, you’re too stupid to do it on your own.”
This is the first year since our daughter started kindergarten that my wife and I have NOT volunteered.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bmcgar ★2017
Date: 2007-07-31 20:42
Tony, that's not so far fetched.
I brought a poppyseed kuchen (like a jellyroll) to a staff meeting at a local mental health agency. The agency director was there, and I told the group and him that eating that might show a false positive for drugs, so if they thought they might be drug tested within 72 hours, they shouldn't eat it unless the Director would take that into consideration if anybody in the meeting tested positive.
He said "no," they'd be fired on the spot.
I ate a piece, dumped the rest in the trash and asked for a drug test. My request was declined.
(Okay, no more off-BBD-topic stuff from me for a while, I promise.)
B.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-07-31 20:53
Seems like the world is being administrated to the point of being completely incomprehensible. "Got Rational?"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-08-01 07:44
And we wonder why it's so hard to find good teachers. I, for one, wouldn't touch a high-school teaching position with a ten-foot pole with all the bizarro regulations they have to put up with.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gwie
Date: 2007-08-01 08:26
Alex,
I'm in that position, and it's really tough sometimes. With the few rotten apples out there messing the the kids, it makes our entire profession suspect. Many times the screw-ups out there don't fit into any particular profile, and every case that goes public brings out the bloodhounds.
I sometimes wish we had big plastic bubbles, or a separate isolated rooms with video/audio feeds while teaching (preferably in a remote location) so that the worse thing we can do to a student is dish out the less savory portions of the English language.
Post Edited (2007-08-01 08:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: joeyscl
Date: 2007-08-02 21:43
"One school district will be instituting mandatory drug testing for all extracurricular activities:
http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=098c48b9-673a-4a31-9fcf-fb1fe21c6138
...GBK"
And they think people don't need to be sober/un-stoned to do math and earth science?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fred
Date: 2007-08-04 03:08
If one purpose of getting an education is to help prepare you to face the "real" world, then getting used to drug testing will be part of that education. Sometimes the educational institutions reinvent the rules - math classes become social science discussions and we debate the rights of students to not be drug tested. Once you leave those sacred halls of education, the fairy tale is over. You're either competent in your field or you're out - no social discussions are going to save you. And you have every right to refuse the drug test . . . on your way out the door. Might as well get used to it . . .
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bmcgar ★2017
Date: 2007-08-04 03:20
Might as well at least protest, too, instead of being passive.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-04 03:57
Fred,
Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more with what you wrote. In fact, what you wrote angered me to the point where I feel compelled to reply.
If we "might as well get used to" every stupid rule that misguided administrators and government officials come up with, might as well labotomize all of us now.
Apparently the administrators of this school are looking to send a message -- but the message is so misguided that if it weren't so dire and draconian it would be laughable. That message is:
"We don't trust any of you to stay away from drugs. And we don't trust your parents to do a good enough job to guide you about the pitfalls of substance abuse. Sure, we could ask you if you do drugs, but you could always lie about it, so we're not going to ask you since you're inherently untrustworthy. Therefore we will put our trust in chemistry -- which never lies --- and let the content of your urine determine your future."
If you're seriously interested in dispelling the fairy tale myths that kids grow up believe, so that they see the real world for what it is, you could start on a campaign to dispel the myth of Santa Claus. At first you'd be reviled, but in a few years' time you'd start getting love letters from poor and middle class families who could never really afford to spend so much of their hard-earned money on a bunch of overpriced plastic crap in the first place --- stuff that kids are brainwashed into thinking they must have by unscrupulous marketing people. Wanna "get real" about things? Let's start there.
Post Edited (2007-08-04 04:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dano
Date: 2007-08-04 04:14
Ski, I agree with you 100%. This "get used to it" attitude is what the overpowered hopes we, as members of a society say to each other. I can see that attitude in the military but civilian society is not the military and rolling over on your back when told to do so is dangerous and has never moraly worked for me. Your whole post is right on.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Granger
Date: 2007-08-04 12:33
Well, since the discussion doesn't seem to want to slide gracefully off the front page yet, I'll add that so far, nobody has commented on whether or not this kind of testing actually works. I just happened to pick up the latest newletter from our local Drug & Alcohol Comission yesterday, which has an article on random drug testing (the material is not copyrighted, BTW). Obviously this is a little different from mandatory testing for participation in extracurriculars, but I believe there was a central random-testing aspect to the program in the linked article that started this thread, and that the points in this newletter piece are still valid. Apparently, one of the largest and most thorough national studies to date showed that the use of drugs other than marijuana was actually HIGHER in the schools using drug testing. Reasons for this might be:
- tests often don't cover alcohol.
- the most commonly used test doesn't screen for inhalants, clubs drugs, hallucinogens, Ecstasy, or steroids.
- cocaine, heroin, and many prescription drugs are only detectable with 1 to 4 days of use. They could be used Friday night and the person could show clean early the following week.
Among other points made be the article are:
- reliance on drug testing rather than prevention and intervention programming may reduce the emphasis on building decision-making, communication, leadership and resiliancy skills (a point I attempted to make in an earlier post).
- it may also reduce the emphasis on strong student assistance teams that can spot troubled kids and intervene.
The article opines that the place of drug testing is in helping confirm the cause of other problem behaviors, monitoring students in recovery, or checking for drug use following a fight or other incident.
Upshot: using "blanket" testing as a way to keep drugs out of schools or deal with the problem of drugs in schools does not appear to be effective, and may be counterproductive.
I would also add that kids are pretty smart, and will figure out ways to "beat the test" just as pro athletes do, by learning when to use so that drugs will be out of their system by the time they are likely to be tested or by switching to drugs not covered by testing or that are less likely to be detected. This just makes testing into a "beat the system" game rather than a prevention tool.
Article is from "Prevention Press" by the Council on Drug and Alcohol Abuse, Lancaster, PA.
Ed
Ed
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MichaelR
Date: 2007-08-04 14:21
Fred wrote:
> If one purpose of getting an education is to help prepare you
> to face the "real" world, then getting used to drug testing
> will be part of that education.
To consider seeing the eventual effect of that approach, especially in the current political climate of the US, I highly recommend seeing the movie "In the Lives of Others" aka ".Leben der Anderen, Das" [1]
As Ed Granger pointed out blanket drug testing is ineffective and has side effects that include teaching students how to beat the tests. For example ... Pre-employment drug testing as employed by large enterprises is a joke. The test can only be done legally after a job offer is extended, the interviewing and hiring process takes so long that an applicant has ample time to cease using whatever and cleanly pass whatever test is used.
In a school situation the student knows when the start of the "season" is and can dry out in response.
[1] To keep this slightly on topic of the board, the movie's sound track has some wonderful classical music.
--
Michael of Portland, OR
Be Appropriate and Follow Your Curiosity
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fred
Date: 2007-08-04 15:39
Quote:
[Apparently the administrators of this school are looking to send a message -- but the message is so misguided that if it weren't so dire and draconian it would be laughable. That message is:
"We don't trust any of you to stay away from drugs. And we don't trust your parents to do a good enough job to guide you about the pitfalls of substance abuse. Sure, we could ask you if you do drugs, but you could always lie about it, so we're not going to ask you since you're inherently untrustworthy. Therefore we will put our trust in chemistry -- which never lies --- and let the content of your urine determine your future." ]
Let’s follow our band kids around after they leave the band hall. After school, they take Driver’s Education. Would you say the message they learn there is:
"We don't trust any of you to not exceed the speed limit. And we don't trust your parents to do a good enough job to guide you about obeying traffic laws. Sure, we could ask you if you drove too fast, but you could always lie about it, so we're not going to ask you since you're inherently untrustworthy. Therefore we will put our trust in radar guns -- which never lie --- and let the numbers on the display determine your future."
Or follow the kids on a band trip to march in the Rose Bowl parade. When they go to get on the plane, would you say that the message there is:
"We don't trust any of you to not be terrorists. And we don't trust your parents to do a good enough job to guide you about having a regard for human life. Sure, we could ask you if you are a terrorist, but you could always lie about it, so we're not going to ask you since you're inherently untrustworthy. Therefore we will put our trust in metal detectors, body searches, and luggage searches -- which never lie --- and let the results of our searches determine your future."
And once they get there and have some down time at the mall, they notice the security cameras. Would you say that the message is:
"We don't trust any of you to not shoplift. And we don't trust your parents to do a good enough job to guide you about not stealing. Sure, we could ask you if you shoplifted, but you could always lie about it, so we're not going to ask you since you're inherently untrustworthy. Therefore we will put our trust in surveillance cameras -- which never lies --- and let what we capture on film when you’re not aware we’re watching determine your future."
You see, there are lots of checks and balances in our world. You may not like any of the ones I’ve mentioned, but I just wanted you to see that the drug testing issue is not unique. I chose examples which would all apply to minors – band students if you will – during the course of their high school years.
Finally, in a few short months or years, these band students will leave their hallowed halls of higher learning. They will find that most employers will use far more invasive (or was that “draconian”) measures then these to monitor the behavior of their employees. They will monitor your email (pardon me . . . that’s their email since it’s on their system), check your time records, monitor your internet sites, watch your coming and going on security cameras, do background checks on you . . . the list goes on. Of course, you can opt out if you don’t want their money.
I wish we lived in a perfect world where none of the measures I spoke of ever needed to be employed. But speeding tickets, security checks, hidden cameras, and yes, even drug testing, do serve a purpose. Yes, there are still speeders, terrorists, shoplifters, and drug users. But is that cause to do away with all efforts to lessen the problems?
In the end, if you do what is right, you have little to fear from these “draconian” measures. And by the way, pre-employment drug screens do eliminate many candidates, and random drug screens in the workplace do find drug users in the workplace. The "we're too smart to get caught" mentality doesn't work forever - our court systems and prisons give ample evidence of that.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-04 17:03
Fred,
If I understand your position correctly...
If "the grievousness of a crime is determined by the severity of the punishment", then, "the genuineness of one's innocence is determined the degree of suspicion".
Let me say that I truly hope I'm wrong in my interpetation of your position.
When you were in 4th grade, did one of your classmates ever steal the teacher's eraser? And when the teacher discovered this did he/she get mad and ask who stole the eraser? And when no one admitted to it did the teacher ever punish the entire class (no snack break, no recess, no class trip, etc.)?
Were these fair punishments? Of course not. But because of the simplistic approach of the teacher, everyone paid a price. The teacher's actions serve only to demonstrate to children that people in power are apt to blame an entire class of people for the wrongdoings of one "bad apple".
The teacher could have taken a much better approach, however. With expression of anger optional, he/she goes to the supply room, gets another eraser, and continues with the day's lesson without imposing harsh penalties on the group. The approach here is one of resourcefulness, not ego.
There are alternative methods for constructively -- not destructively -- dealing with nearly every such situation in life that don't require Einsteinian minds to devise. However, the "punish the entire class" mentality remains a lasting bent with adults as school boards, administrators, and governments when it comes to dealing with anti-social behavior (stealing erasers, drugs, terrorism). Perhaps it's no wonder --- they learned this behavior as children!
But ultimately this approach is as immature -- and in the hands of adults, draconian -- as the mentality of the 9 year-old kid who stole the eraser.
Here's another approach to the eraser caper that hits, perhaps, closer to home with respect to the idea of the determination of guilt or innocence based on the way some chemicals react with a kid's pee:
When the teacher discovered that the eraser was stolen, instead of asking the class en masse who stole it, expecting (rightly or wrongly) an honest answer from a "thief", he/she walked up to each seated student, looked them squarely in the eye, and asked them if they stole it. It just so happens that some of the kids found the situation kinda funny (I know I would have). After all, they are k_i_d_s. And sure enough, a few of the innocent kids had trouble keeping a straight face when answering "no", and the result? Five students were punished and made to stay after school.
In this case, the teacher's equated laughter with guilt. Or, another way to put this: a faulty test with false positives in the results.
I offer the above as a rebuttal to your analogies, all of which I believe miss the mark.
In closing, while we disagree on this issue, I would truly hate to see you walking through an airport with your clarinet case, have a sniffer dog sit down beside you, only to have you and your instrument whisked away and interrogated as a terror or drug suspect.
"What's this?"
"Cigarette rolling papers."
"Drug paraphernalia, huh? C'mon, where's the pot? Boys? Tear the case apart..."
"Wait! They're not used for smoking!"
"Oh, no? Let's see... you're a musician, you're carrying rolling papers. Do you think we're that stupid?"
"No, you have it all wrong. The papers are used to dry the pads after a performance. Blowing into a tube? Spit? See?"
"Yeah, right. Now, what are these..."
"You mean the matches?"
"Yes, the matches."
"They're part of an emergency pad replacement kit, to melt the old glue..."
"Rolling papers and matches... Makes perfect sense for a clarinetist. STRIP SEARCH!"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fred
Date: 2007-08-04 19:32
You do not understand my position at all . . . not even close. So I'll close with this: Your ideals are lofty - I actually admire them. But ideals are difficult to manage in a society. That's why we have laws instead of ideals. That's why employers have rules and requirements instead of ideals.
Maybe you've never sat on a school board and had to wrestle with trying to be fair and still maintain order . . . but I have. Maybe you've never sat on corporate or organizational boards that had to address the actions and attitudes of employees . . . but I have. And maybe you've never had a corporation revise its policies and punish all the employees because a few people abused a priviledge . . . but I have. Yes, sometimes when you try to do a good thing, a less-than-perfect outcome is the result. But remember that every law, every ruling, every policy, and every punishment is the result of society trying to manage people that don't want to be managed.
Until the day comes that you can make the rules, you must either abide by the rules or accept the consequences. You may protest . . . but you may also be fired, arrested, or whatever the consequence may be. And should you get to a point in life that you CAN make the rules, you may find that process far more difficult than you had imagined.
And that, my friend, is all I have to say about that . . .
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Granger
Date: 2007-08-04 22:00
When it comes to school policy, I do make the rules. I vote for my local school board members. They work for me, not the other way around. It's a democracy. We make the rules together. We don't have to passively accept them. The idea that those of us who believe our ideals are ultimately what make us who we are as a people -- and that we have an obligation to at least point toward them, and perhaps even to work toward them, one painful step at a time -- are somehow out of touch is frankly condescending. I have had to hold those I supervise accountable and to terminate their employment on occasion. But I also know that rules made to address the least common denominator of performance or behavior tend to work poorly, and often inhibit the fullest efforts of the well-intentioned. The statement that companies have rules and requirements in place of ideals is also woefully off course - companies with an engaged workforce also have a mission and vision that provide a positive motivation, rather than relying solely or even primarily on negative reinforcement. You keep talking about "managing," but seem to have no awareness of the critical distinction between "management" and "leadership." People conform to rules, but they follow leaders. I'd rather be a leader.
Laws are supposed to be our collective way of solving shared problems - not managing those who don't wish to be "managed." This isn't the Soviet Union. The best laws embody our ideals, not stand in their stead.
As for simply accepting bad laws until power is handed over or attained through sanctioned means, I would suggest you do some reading about a little moment in history called the Civil Rights Movement.
Ed
Post Edited (2007-08-04 22:28)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette ★2017
Date: 2007-08-04 22:34
Ed Granger wrote:
> As for simply accepting bad laws until power is handed over or
> attained through sanctioned means, I would suggest you do some
> reading about a little moment in history called the Civil
> Rights Movement.
Who learned from the master of non-violence as political action:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghandi
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2007-08-04 22:42
"Upshot: using "blanket" testing as a way to keep drugs out of schools or deal with the problem of drugs in schools does not appear to be effective, and may be counterproductive.
I would also add that kids are pretty smart, and will figure out ways to "beat the test" just as pro athletes do, by learning when to use so that drugs will be out of their system by the time they are likely to be tested or by switching to drugs not covered by testing or that are less likely to be detected. This just makes testing into a "beat the system" game rather than a prevention tool."
-------------------------------------
Random testing would make it a lot harder to beat the system than planned tests.
Face the facts, a heck of a lot of kids do drugs either regularly, or at least try them. I didn't, nor didn't even try them ever, but my brother did, and x-wife did too as kids.
% wise it's pretty high - just like lots of kids on the weekend are. And no, parents aren't always, nor even usually the ones who are clued in on what is really completely going on.
Personally I'm for random drug testing on students regardless of if they are in a sport, music, or not. Let's add cigarettes to the test too........
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Michael E. Shultz
Date: 2007-08-04 23:00
A nearby county government has been discussing their health insurance costs, which are high. The health insurance carrier has been losing money on this county's account, so the rates will probably go even higher. The cost of claims is exceeding the amount paid in health insurance.
A company providing drug testing is advocating mandatory employee drug testing. This is not cheap, as it would cost thousands of dollars a year. The company is claiming that lower health care expenditures would more than make up the difference.
However, police officers and employees who hold commercial driver's licenses are already subject to drug testing, and none of these county employees have ever had a positive test result.
Based on these past test results, I suspect that the cost of mandatory drug testing for all county employees will far exceed the savings. If this is adopted, the only one guaranteed to make money is the company providing the drug testing.
I believe that the costs of mandatory drug testing, both financial and social, outweigh the benefits.
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Granger
Date: 2007-08-04 23:13
"Random testing would make it a lot harder to beat the system than planned tests."
According to the study I cited, not really. Random testing isn't really "random," unless you're talking about rousting kids out of bed on a Saturday night to pee. Kids can use on Friday night and pee clean on Monday or Tuesday - depending on what they're using. According to the study, marijuana use declined. This was probably because marijuana is detectable for much longer than other drugs. So random testing might merely push kids who smoke pot into use of inhalants or club drugs - it could, conceivably, increase their actual health risks. The evidence strongly suggests at this point that random testing isn't the best tool for dealing with the problem. Would you use a hammer to fix a sticking pad? (note rare inclusion of clarinet reference).
(Note that by "blanket" testing, I am actually referring to "random testing" as opposed to testing kids with showing some signs of drug use or problem behavior.)
Ed
Post Edited (2007-08-04 23:25)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-04 23:28
I found this article online which goes into much more detail about the situation in the Utah schools...
http://ut.mpp.org/site/c.fgLKIXOIKtF/b.1774883/apps/nl/content2.asp?content_id=%7B84DAC6BB-31C9-4DE6-8E0B-F2673B7BF5DA%7D¬oc=1
I'd like to suggest that this article be given a careful, slow read.
What I read was some very confused reasoning on the part of school officials. The degree to which these people are misguided in their approach and reasoning boggles the mind, and it took them 18 months to arrive at such an errant conclusion! See, I'm wondering what it is about the nature of extra-curricular activities which led the board members to think that such students would be more prone to doing drugs.
The article mentions that kids will be tested once for each activity they engage in, including such things as "solo ensemble". So if a kid signs up for flute and volleyball they need to pee in a cup twice. That's not only insane, but costly! Note the cost quoted for each test: $18. But in another online article, the cost quoted was $50 - $70 per test.
At the very bottom it lists what kids will be tested for, including creatinine level. If my understanding is correct, this chemical is produced as a byproduct of muscle activity. So if a kid works out at home (as I used to do), and their creatinine level is high, I wonder what kind of extracurricular jeopardy will that put him/her in?
These is not a rational decision. In part it represents a shifting of the burden of parents to mold their kids' behavior onto the school system, with the naughty/nice behavior check to be arbitrated by some pee and some chemicals. It also subtly stigmatizes children who want to explore life in terms of music and sports as potential sociopaths.
And if you don't submit to the test then you can't engage in these activities. So I supposed either ur-ine or ur-out...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2007-08-05 07:03
Ski wrote:
> I found this article online which goes into much more detail
> about the situation in the Utah schools...
"...Activities recognized by UHSAA includes band, basketball, baseball, debate, cross country, competitive choir and drama, drill team, football, golf, softball, soccer, swimming/diving, track, tennis, volleyball and wrestling. It also includes students who participate in solo ensemble..."
Kids who play in jazz groups get away without being tested??
EVERYONE knows about those jazz musicians ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dano
Date: 2007-08-05 15:50
It is kind of funny that not one article or argument has been made about how "horrible" it would be if there were zero tolerance towards not being able to preform the activity the student wants to join and leave the "zero tolerance towards drugs" out of it altoghether. If you are on some drug that keeps you from preforming your task, you are out because you can't preform your task, not because your durg test came back positive. Schools are not parents. At least they shouldn't be.
You are right about those groovin' jazz cats. All a bunch of hop-heads!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Michael E. Shultz
Date: 2007-08-05 21:17
I graduated from high school in 1974. Since then, the following changes have occurred:
vocational schools
honors diploma
student competency testing
No Child Left Behind Act
college level courses while still in high school
Instrumental music is a time-intensive activity. I spent more after-school time on band than on all other courses combined. I even took two years of summer school, history and government, so that I had room for other courses during the school year.
Vocational programs siphon off juniors and seniors, keeping them from participating in music. The other four changes require additional time that must come from somewhere else. The result is an assault on elective programs such as music.
Mandatory drug testing would be yet another reason not to be involved in music, even for those of us who have never tried alcohol, tobacco, or other mind-altering drugs. I had more privacy with bathroom functions in the Critical Care Unit than is provided to those undergoing drug testing. Who needs this kind of hassle, especially when you can avoid it by not participating?
Some years ago, a person was set to testify in favor of mandatory drug testing before a congressional committee. As he was ready to testify, the committee chairman told him that he would first have to take a drug test. This drug testing advocate hemmed and hawed for several minutes, before the chairman relented and allowed his testimony.
As Mr. Rogers might have said: "Can you say hypocrite, boys and girls? I knew you could!"
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bstutsman
Date: 2007-08-07 20:57
GBK,
I guess I'm going to take a minority position here.
The second day that I student taught, a 15-year-old tuba player fell off his chair in an overdose. I didn't know who was more stupid; the kid or the people who let him be an addict in the first place. This was in 1971.
I say your district is doing an ok thing. As a former band director and now the parent of a sophomore band student, I am very ok with this. The more distance that can be placed between my kid and dopers; the better.
Yeah, I know, some of you are going to tell me that kids can beat the tests, dopers are everywhere and drugs can be gotten anywhere, but I don't care. There are burglars everywhere and they can get into my house when they want, but I still lock the door. Why let it be easy for them.
It should also be pointed out that the district administrators are probably not doing this of their own volition. There is perhaps Federal funding involved or a parent/community pressure group elbowing them in the ribs.
If a kid is not going to participate in something just because of drug tests, then his commitment to the thing is not very great anyway. If you are worried about kids not being involved in music programs, then maybe we need to make the programs more compelling.
Please don't any of you take it personally, but it's some of the soft, lackadaisical attitudes and statements made here that have gotten us into this problem in the first place.
By the way, I once got the best job I ever had because someone else couldn't pass a drug test.
Tell your school district, "Rock On!"
Post Edited (2007-08-07 21:01)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: davyd
Date: 2007-08-21 02:25
Why stop with extracurricular activities? Make the kids pass a drug test before they can even enroll in school!
Well OK maybe not. What would you do with all the ones who flunk?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bmcgar ★2017
Date: 2007-08-21 03:57
bstutsman wrote, in part:
"If a kid is not going to participate in something just because of drug tests, then his commitment to the thing is not very great anyway."
Does that mean that, because I refused pre-interview drug tests because I consider them an unwarranted invasion of privacy, I wouldn't be committed to the job?
I don't mean to sound strident (that is, more strident than usual), but the syllogism here is very close to, "If you don't take drugs, you have nothing to worry about, so accept the test."
This type of thing is flirting with fascism, with all its mashed up logic.
I also would like to ask bstusman how many other kids "fell off their chairs" in his/her decades of teaching. If it was one every five years, would 6 in 30 years, or 6 in three or four thousand of students justify the panic that encourages government-mandated testing?
Sorry. I just don't buy it, and even as person who works with substance abusers--substance abusers, not substance users--I refuse to panic and I refuse to be pushed around unless there's a really good reason for it.
I could go on about how many kids I've seen who have no real drug problems, but whose mandatory treatment sucks community resources away from people with serious psychological problems because treating for drug use gets funded, whereas treating for schizoid behavior (for example) doesn't. But that's a whole other rant.
B.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bstutsman
Date: 2007-08-21 04:59
Bmcgar,
First off, I will gently remind you that we are talking about kids, not adults.
I would have to say, “Yes”, to your first question. If you refuse a pre-interview drug test, it seems that you ARE more committed to not taking a drug test than you are to getting the job. It seems obvious where your commitment is. But that’s an adult situation, not a kid situation.
You, like many other contributors here, seem intent on turning this into a discussion on civil rights. But the real point of all this is to help kids who have problems. Talking about individual rights, which are certainly important, ducks the real issue of helping kids get and stay off drugs.
Bmcgar, you put words in my mouth with, “If you don’t take drugs, you have nothing to worry about, so accept the test.” Actually, I don’t mind that because the quotation makes great sense as Fred has mentioned above.
Consider driving tests. We submit to them even though we have not had an accident or even been shown to be bad drivers. Are these driving tests also a violation of personal freedom?
Bmcgar: “This type of thing is flirting with fascism, with all its mashed up logic.” This line is clearly in the realm of attacking the messenger, if you cannot defeat the message.
As for other students falling off of chairs, I imagine there were a few. However, those others were able to get up and get back on their chairs. The student I mentioned could not even lift his head from the floor.
You talk about working with substance *abusers* and try to make some kind of distinction between them and substance *users*. I’m not sure what you mean by that. I hope you are not saying that narcotics used in “moderation” are ok. As for the substance abusers that you work with, something brought them to you for help. Was it an overdose or was it, perhaps, a drug test that brought out a small problem before it became a major one?
There are other side issues in all this that haven’t been discussed. One is the vulnerability school districts have now to all kinds of litigation. Sometimes they are just trying to protect themselves. Another issue is the unduly high cost of the tests. You would think with economy of scale, the cost would be considerably less. Bmcgar, perhaps we should just pack it in and go into the drug testing business.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: C2thew
Date: 2007-08-21 05:08
Have you seen band kids nowadays?!?!?! Alot of them are extremely rowdy and somehow find ways to smuggle alcohol under the noses of band directors all the time! i mean i can see how people can get the wrong message of the test, but when someone wants to find people who are hyperactive, naturally they will want to join them and share.
I've seen many band directors reprimand students for alcohol. don't think that all kids are the same....
my 2 cents.
Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. they are but improved means to an unimproved end, an end which was already but too easy to arrive as railroads lead to Boston to New York
-Walden; Henry Thoreau
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-21 07:16
bstutsman,
First off, I will gently remind you that we are talking about kids, not adults.
I'd also like to gently remind you that we're talking about kids, not adults.
You, like many other contributors here, seem intent on turning this into a discussion on civil rights.
I don't feel this is a matter of civil rights at all. It's about common sense (or the lack thereof), it's about not shaping a child's future based on chemical tests. And my position here is also to point out the skewed thinking that believes that drug use and extracurricular activities are inherently linked.
Speaking of chemical tests, would you want to see youre child's future in music or sports decided by a false positive because he had a poppy seed bagel the previous day for lunch? Or because his creatinine level was high due to extra-scholatically sponsored extra-curricular sports activities? Or because his pee got mixed up with some other kid's pee in the lab?
But the real point of all this is to help kids who have problems.
Sorry, but you're wrong. The focus of the ruling is on kids who are interested in participating in extracurricular activities, with the (loud and clear) inference being that kids who want to play sports or get involved in music are more prone to getting involved with drugs/alcohol.
If you really want to help kids who have a drug/alcohol problem, common sense dictates (to me anyway) that you shouldn't punish them or shun them --- instead, you help them (counseling, therapy, rehab in bad cases, or perhaps some good old fashioned grounding by their parents). But you can't help a child by shutting them out of important and perhaps ephipanal life experiences they haven't yet had by dint of the fact that they ARE children.
Children haven't yet fully formed distinctions between right and wrong. Children, particularly teens, are prone to rebellion as well as curiosity, both quite normal human qualities which you can't legislate or drug-test or even scare out of a kid. "Kids will be kids." Some kids will dabble in drugs/alcohol and some won't, just like some kids will dabble in shoplifting and some won't. But it's not just the kids who want to play in the band or be on the basketball team who are prone to this kind of rebellion, curiosity, and experimentation; these traits are common to the entire student body! And it is for this reason that this decision by the school board is so blatantly wrong, if not also discriminatory. For me, however, the discriminatory aspect is tangential.
We hear in the news how the occasional entertainer or sports figure winds up with a drug problem. So should budding musicians/athletes be guilty by association? But if this is to be the case, then kids wanting to participate in a school's video and broadcasting programs should be tested also ---- wouldn't want them to end up like Rush Limbaugh. And I'm sure examples could be found for druggies in all walks of life, not just those whose problems are given exposure because they're celebrities.
Post Edited (2007-08-21 20:26)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette ★2017
Date: 2007-08-21 11:10
bmcgar wrote:
> I don't mean to sound strident (that is, more strident than
> usual), but the syllogism here is very close to, "If you don't
> take drugs, you have nothing to worry about, so accept the
> test."
Akin also to "May I search your car? No? What do you have to hide? Wait here while I get a warrant."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette ★2017
Date: 2007-08-21 11:12
C2thew wrote:
> Have you seen band kids nowadays?!?!?! Alot of them are
> extremely rowdy and somehow find ways to smuggle alcohol under
> the noses of band directors all the time!
And THAT was back in 1970!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2007-08-26 16:08
bstutsman wrote:
> GBK,
>
> I guess I'm going to take a minority position here.
>
> The second day that I student taught, a 15-year-old tuba player
> fell off his chair in an overdose. I didn't know who was more
> stupid; the kid or the people who let him be an addict in the
> first place. This was in 1971.
>
And mandatory drug testing may not have found him in advance as this could just as easily have been a first time use. If he keeled over in band, it sounds like he probably got them in school just before the class. Or perhaps a "friend" slipped him some in food or drink and he was not even aware of the fact that he had taken it.
It looks like you are assuming that he was an addict on the basis that he died of an overdose.
Nor will mandatory testing necessarily catch the "pushers". Some of them are not users themselves.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2007-08-26 21:17
A modest proposal: Use the drug tests, then enroll all the druggies in extracurricular activities such as band and orchestra in order to give these kids something more exciting, interesting and challenging to do than lie around gorking up.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dano
Date: 2007-08-26 21:37
All this malarkey about the main thing is "wanting to help kids" is crazy. School districts, at this time, just want to keep from getting sued by the kids parents. They don't want trouble. They don't want a drunk tuba player falling and injuring himself on school time and then having to deal with the parents threats of lawsuits. There is nothing wrong with not wanting trouble except that it is all disguised as "we are doing it for the good of the children". Today, teachers will quit teaching if they have someone that is coming to classes high and the school districts can't replace them so they want to protect them from the high, possibly dangerous kids. It's not for the good of the children. When I was in H.S. band in the early 70's, "smoking a joint" before having to march at a football game, was the attitude of about 65-70% of the band. The way they dealt with it was to let everyone know "if you can't march and play as instructed to do so, you are out of the band". No school district cares more about kids today than they did back then. Now they just know that "doing it for the children" is a phrase that wins a lot of hearts and minds. It isn't a new problem.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2007-08-26 21:49
> Dano wrote:
<snip insightful post>
100% ACK. Too much wishy-washy and - sorry - cowardice these days, but hardly ever a clear message, with demand, appreciation, and consequences.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Pam H.
Date: 2007-08-28 02:37
To reply to the original post. I think it is stupid to test the kids who want to do extra-curricular activities. In my humble opinion, the kids who are involved in band, sports, whatever are LESS likely to be doing drugs than the ones who are not involved in any extra activities at school.
Those that are doing things like band are doing something positive which hopefully will build their self esteem so they can have the courage if someone even offers drugs, booze, whatever to say "No thanks. Not interested." Plus the activities keep them busy and offer positive peer pressure to excel at something.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2007-08-28 02:52
Pam H. wrote:
> To reply to the original post. I think it is stupid to test the
> kids who want to do extra-curricular activities. In my humble
> opinion, the kids who are involved in band, sports, whatever
> are LESS likely to be doing drugs than the ones who are not
> involved in any extra activities at school.
Various school districts must comply with state-mandated rules for competition in interscholastic and extracurricular activities. In other words, since the sports teams have to be tested, so do the band geeks...and the cheerleaders, and the choir, and the art club, etc
Not that I agree with schools doing mandatory drug testing, but I can tell you that:
a) I taught high school band
b) There were plenty of drugs to go around
c) The percussion kids were responsible for 75% of the drug use in that school
...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-28 02:56
b) There were plenty of drugs to go around
No wonder it was verboten for kids to enter the teacher's lunch room...
Oh, you meant the kids were doing it!
![[grin]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie5.gif)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bstutsman
Date: 2007-08-29 05:22
Ski, you are missing my point about treating kids differently from adults. I know people are going to think I am callous, unfair and prejudicial by what I am about to say. Many will be able to point to zillions of exceptions to what I am about to say. I’m just warning you ahead of time. So here goes:
Generally, kids don’t use good judgment as well as adults do.
There I said it. I think many here disagree with that and I know that sounds cold, fascist and uncaring, but there it is.
Kids are considerably more susceptible to peer pressure, etc than adults are. If someone offered me drugs today, I would have few qualms about poking him in the eye with my finger and walking away. Kids are more polite than that. They will be more inclined to go along, be cool, not make waves, etc. Identifying the user is the first step in getting them help. It also makes it easier to isolate the drug users from the non-drug users.
As for my son’s future being determined by a false positive, I have yet to see one of these testing programs that did not allow for retesting. I find the reference to a poppy seed bagel causing a false positive the ultimate in microscopic knit-picking. I don’t think I have ever even seen a poppy seed bagel and I doubt my son has also. I don’t frequent the delis of New York. I live in the burbs of Houston. We are more into egg mcmuffins here.
For me getting kids off drugs is secondary to keeping the drug users away from my son. Oops, there I go again. Cold, uncaring, fascist.
As for singling out extra-curricular participants for testing, well, that probably is a bad thing. On the other hand these activities are a privilege, so I’m not sure. I suppose a football player is more likely to use steroids than a kid who is in no activities, but that’s another discussion. Note that some here have easily associated drugs with jazzers.
I’m finding it fascinating how different people see and discuss this issue. I think a lot of it must come from our own local/regional cultures. As a former band director, I taught in some very different communities. Yet the meanest, ugliest, and most difficult one I was ever in was the community that I grew up in. The community that we live in today is super with a very fine school district. Though I don’t band direct anymore, I chaperone and spend time with the kids in the local band here. Compared to the students I have seen other places, the kids around here are extremely well-behaved and respectful. Perhaps that makes it easier for me to call for a higher standard.
We have been discussing this for some time now with many participants. Most seem to strongly decry drug testing programs. Yet, no one has offered a real alternative to identifying users. Some have said that impairment of performance is a good test. That is true, but it has been my experience that by the time that impairment becomes manifest, the drug use is more than just causal.
For clarification, the tuba player who over-dosed did not die. He was just in a stupor. It turned out he had been a user for at least a year. I don’t remember what he was taking, but he told the medics attending him that he took a couple of extra ones just to see what would happen. (See comment above about judgment.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jane84
Date: 2007-08-29 19:36
"Oh for the day when kids were "innocent." "
Oh, come on...kids have never been innocent - outside of Avonlea, that is
"For me getting kids off drugs is secondary to keeping the drug users away from my son. Oops, there I go again. Cold, uncaring, fascist."
Well, I wouldn't say that - a little bit selfish perhaps, but that's what seems to happen when people have children. But what if it was your son who was on drugs, then?
-jane
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wayne
Date: 2007-08-29 20:25
Far to many years ago, I took driver's eduction through my high school in Los Angeles. Are these classes, which included behind the wheel training still offered in high school ? This is one place where drug testing may make sense since the kids and general driving public would be at risk.
Just a thought.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dano
Date: 2007-08-29 21:00
Butstsman wrote, "Generally, Kids don't use good judgement as well as adults do". "I think many here disagree with that".
How can anyone (except maybe kids) possibly disagree with that?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bstutsman
Date: 2007-08-29 21:06
Jane, thank you for the comments. I will take slight issue with the “selfish” adjective. From your statement about what happens “when people have children”, I will assume that you have none. That is neither a good or bad thing, nor does it disqualify you from expressing opinions on the subject.
However, it does seem to imply a belief that a parent’s involvement with his/her child is an emotional one. I disagree with that. I believe that there is much practicality in parents taking a strong stance in the lives of their children. Would it be wise for me to leave the welfare of my son to the kindness of strangers? Should I count on the state or institutions to look after my son? Of course not. The better we do as parents, the less stress there is on the “village” to raise our children. Besides, the village hasn’t really shown itself to be particularly good at child rearing anyway.
What would I do if my son was on drugs? This is a good and fair question. My first reactions would be dismay and fear. That would quickly be followed by hope that the damage was not serious or long term. I would also hope that he would have the desire to change his behavior and that I had the means and ability to help him. My love and caring for him would not be diminished. I would probably punish him only as far as curtailing his finances and greatly limiting with whom he associates. If the source of the drugs could be identified, I would go after them hammer and tong as far as the law allows.
Wayne, though the schools in my area are not involved in driver ed., that is not a bad idea. Driver training here is handled by private companies. It might take some pressure off of the schools if these companies could be charged with testing. Though they would pass the cost on to the customer, along with a premium, they would probably be better at negotiating lower prices. It might be more appropriate for the testing to be a part of the state licensing process because driver training is not required to get a license. As the great American philosopher, Jeff Spicoli, once said, “People on ‘ludes shouldn’t drive!”
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Granger
Date: 2007-08-29 23:04
"We have been discussing this for some time now with many participants. Most seem to strongly decry drug testing programs. Yet, no one has offered a real alternative to identifying users."
I disagree, as I believe one has at least been strongly hinted at, if it wasn't stated explicitely. There are programs designed to teach parents, teachers, coaches, band directors, and adults who work with kids to spot not just those who are already using, but those who are at risk for using drugs. Interventions can then be delivered that are targeted at those kids. Testing programs can in fact be used in support of these programs with some benefit. However, too often, random testing programs are a lazy alternative to these programs. The problem with your statement quoted above is that it implies that drug testing programs work. The emerging evidence says that they don't, and that they may be counterproductive. So I'm not sure how it is even incumbent upon somone to suggest an alternative for something that is ineffective. The implication is that doing something is better than doing nothing, even when that "something" is mere (costly) window-dressing designed to make folks feel like they're doing something.
In an earlier post, you compared drug testing to locking your door - why would you make it easy for criminals. But your analogy falls short. Locking your door is simple, easy, and cheap. So even if it doesn't work, the peace of mind it provides may be worth the effort. But drug testing that doesn't work isn't worth the high price tag or the other negative consequences that locking your door doesn't bring.
Ed
Post Edited (2007-08-29 23:10)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-29 23:19
bstutsman,
I couldn't agree with you more that kids don't use good judgement as well as adults. They are kids, after all, and that's precisely my point --- if kids are doing drugs at a young age, it's because they don't know any better. Kids in math, history, or science class are no different from those with an interest in sports or music (the latter two categories of course being the ones which the Utah school district ruling targets kids for drug testing). So on one hand, yes, the ruling is discriminatory. But my more ardent position is that kids, by dint of their youth don't know better, shouldn't be punished for making the mistake of dabbling in drugs or alcohol; rather, they should be helped. Interventions, counseling, and probably best of all, having their parents show some balls and "do something about their kids".
If you aren't aware of the pleasures of a poppyseed bagel with cream cheese, you are missing one of the great joys in life. In fact, if you haven't had an authentic poppyseed hamentashen (a traditional pastry made during the Jewish holiday of Purim) then I will gladly send you some next time Purim swings 'round! The only problem with poppyseeds, though, is that they can trigger false positives in drug tests.
In closing, I don't think you're a cold, uncaring fascist. Based on what you've written here, I think you put a little too much trust in the notion that all rules are good rules, and that chemical testing isn't prone to both chemical and human error. I admire your sticking to your guns on your position, even though I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye on this subject. However, I could probably convince you to learn to love poppyseeded baked goods!
Ski
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dfh
Date: 2007-08-30 02:49
"A modest proposal: Use the drug tests, then enroll all the druggies in extracurricular activities such as band and orchestra in order to give these kids something more exciting, interesting and challenging to do than lie around gorking up."
Best idea I've heard! But you'd have to do it to every kid in the school. (Which I just don't agree with...but this is the way it's going) This would be ABOUT THE KIDS. There are so many levels of users, experimenters, the vast majority of whom turn into wonderful, contributing members of society. Give them something to do, something to be proud of, something thier parents can get involved in, perhaps the experiment will be just that and the addicition and heavier use won't follow.
To me, mandatory drug testing is the easy way out for parents who won't take responsibility for being parents. If you don't know your kid has a problem, you have a problem. Go through their pockets, ask them what they're doing. Take a good whiff of their breath/hair when they get home. It's not that hard. Get to know their friends and their friends parents. This is my alternative to drug testing. Give classes on how to catch your kid - what to look for etc. Probably a heck of a lot cheaper than drug testing!
Also, the stigma that is placed on kids/people who are users drives me crazy. There are so many good people, good kids that do stupid things, but that's what they do to learn to do what's right. That's why zero tolerance is a huge mistake. To expell the top student for PASSING A BOTTLE. To ruin a life over a simple mistake. It's avoiding the problem. Kids need compassion. We all do.
And the 'kids these days" line. Sneaking booze on the band trip has been happening since the first band trip ever.
Kicking kids out of Band, or soccer because they tested positive for pot isn't going to help. It's going to make them feel worse about themselvse, and then what? If the parents weren't paying enough attention to catch the problem, are they going to pay enough attention to stop the depression? And the adults that give them attention - the coaches and band directors are out too, and the kids are left to fend for themselves.
Ok, I'll stop the rant. what an amazing thread this has been!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
