St. John's students, staff to face drug tests

I heard it is not random, that all students will be tested. I also have heard different explanations as to what happens if you test positive - with one party telling me two strikes and your out and the other saying no tolerance like the other Catholic Schools.

Although I understand your position Ace_Face, the students don't have a leg to stand on. Don't do drugs if you want to go to SJ.

i went to st. johns my freshman year of highschool and there were a LOT of kids doing drugs. granted, this was 20+ years ago, but i can't see how testing would be a bad thing?

If I recall correctly, the original article pointed out that several other local schools (even public) do the same type of testing for athletes only.

The article talked about how SJ didn't want to single out only one group of students. I can understand that rationale to an extent.

Honestly, if adults can be subjected to similar testing in the workplace, I guess it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable in high school either.

I'm not terribly concerned about the testing itself...as long as there is a reasonable plan for handling the results.

(As a potential SJ parent in a few years...)

But this isn't a public school. The kids spent their parents money on the better stuff.

OP definitely seems a bit angry and uptight. I can respect the issue of losing privacy, but drug screening like this can help expose problems that are have been hidden for years.

St John's has long been known for having drug problems; kudos to the school for taking action where the parents choose to be naive.

< bows before the eloquent OHT, who succinctly summed up everything that is wrong with the quasi-fascist SJH policy >

I'm with HistoryMike. OldHomeTown did a great job with this one. Here's a tip of the fedora and a hoist of the afternoon bourbon glass to you, Sir. You are a man among men and an accomplished writer.

OHT - please tell me where I 'laud and defend' public schools. Guarantee it wasn't me.

My kids are/were life-long parochial school students. and it doesn't change what I said - of the five catholic high schools, St Johns has the worst reputation for drugs, no school is immune public or private but they have long been known as the worst with little if any discipline being layed out by school or parents. Now they have a policy in place to across the board deal with it.

With all due respect, SJH already HAD policies in place to deal with drugs, MrsArcher. The difference here is that everyone gets targeted as a potential drug user, and there is no longer even the facade of due process.

If there were a problem with identity theft at SJH, would you be fine with the school having access to all personal financial data of students, faculty, and staff? After all, one of the people in the SJH community might be engaging in identity theft, and God knows what a problem that is. Surely giving up some personal info is a small price to pay from the horrors of getting your identity stolen.

How about DNA? I hear that DNA information is very useful in tracking all sorts of criminals. It is very possible that a member of th SJH community might be involved in criminal sexual activity. Would you be just as tolerant if SJH officials created a DNA database and forced everyone to submit a DNA sample? After all, we wouldn't want a sexual predator lurking around, right? If SJH had its own DNA database, they could screen out potential problem students and faculty members, especially if they could tie into the national databases.

And how about monitoring all non-school activties? The school would certainly want to know if someone in the SJH community is engaged in criminal activity or behavior that would tarnish the school's reputation, right? I mean, what if a student or faculty member is involved with al Qaeda or something - don't you agree that protection of terrorists is worth being monitored 24/7? After all: if you are not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't be worried. right? Camera in the houses of all SJH community members would be a good start, plus software embedded on all the computers and smart phones to track Internet activity should be a minimum here. I also think a security service of 10-12 operatives would be helpful in monitoring off-campus activity.

< /end Swiftian satire >

Errr... "protection from terrorists..."

SMCC in Monroe announced a similar policy around the same time as the St John's anouncement.

Sorry, forgot to include the link to the original story.

http://www.toledoblade.com/Education/2012/05/25/St-John-s-students-staff-to-face-drug-tests.html

MrsArcher--I apologize. I did have you mixed with another poster and I wholeheartedly take back the "laud and defend public schools" part of my response. I'm sorry.

...however...

I stand by my statements about your sweeping generalizations of SJ.

St Johns has the worst reputation for drugs, no school is immune public or private but they have long been known as the worst with little if any discipline being layed out by school or parents.

And you know this how? Oh yes, "reputation". Not referencing experiences, news stories, academic survey research, attendance at any meetings where this problem has been publicly discussed...just "what I've heard is....". And your solution--of course for those parents of those children (whom you have heard have the worst drug problem of the Catholic schools in the area) is blanket submission to testing that pre-supposes guilt (oh, but we just know that most of them are on drugs...we know this because I've heard they have the worst drug problems in the city Catholic schools).

Sorry, that's wrong. Those kids may have limited rights, but guilty-until-proven-innocent tactics in the name of "safety" are not only contrary to what we have enshrined in our legal system (despite the obvious contradictions in various places)...it should scare the living shit out of everyone who values principles--such as that authority must show reasonable evidence that an invasion of this sort is necessary; otherwise, you are presumed innocent.

Put it another, satirical way: I'm a "Johnny" through and through and of course we have a big rivalry with St. Francis. I've heard that out of the five local Catholic high schools, it is long known that St. Francis students have the worst problems with diarrhea. I mean, I've heard they have such massive problems that it costs the school thousands of dollars every year in replaced plumbing fixtures and floor cleaning costs (not to mention, air filtration maintenance).

St. Francis should start screening every student, as a condition of admission, with a long metal proctology "probe" to determine who has had irritable bowel disorder because, as we all know, a slippery, smelly floor is "unsafe" and they should be concerned with the "well being" of the children. After all, this invasion of privacy will benefit all at St. Francis, where naive parents chalk up the massive methane buildup in their own homes to Toledo's obsession with new Mexican restaurants.

historymike: Now that's satire!

OHT, to be honest, I've heard the same thing about SJ's reputation for drug use in the student body. From a variety of sources...recent SJ parents, co-workers, etc.

Whatever the source of the reputation, it is a quite common perception amongst the community of people who are trying to decide where to send their kids for high school.

Of course, every high school likely has at least some students who use drugs. But, like it or not, the perception is that the frequency at SJ's is above what might be typical.

I know it was something on my mind when my son started talking about where he might want to attend high school in a few years.

I hear the St. Francis students know a lot about where to find a good roofer in Toledo, too, OHT.

By the way, I'm not necessarily saying that the testing is the best or only way to deal with it...just sharing that I've heard the same thing about SJs as well.

(As I said in my first post on the topic, I don't specifically have a problem with the idea of testing, but could have concerns about the way it would be implemented/handled.)

I believe SJ did this to separate themselves. The problem lies (as it would with any school) can they afford to lose the students that fail the test. If things get hairy and a larger group of students test positive than expected, they can't back down.
With that said, having sons go to Catholic Schools now - I have never heard SJ has a drug problem.

Talked with a soon to be Junior at SJ. The tests are random based on a computer generated selection. He also said he is unaware of there being any different treatment for the athletes. I had read/heard somewhere that all the athletes were tested. Guess not.

This is going to be very interesting from a public perception standpoint. As an SJ alum, I know drug use was pretty commonplace there. And more importantly, as a college graduate, I know the same was true at most any other high school.

While I have absolutely no objections to a school testing for things that are explicitly illegal like this, I do find it to be a an extremely bold move to be the first to do this in the area. I can only imagine it will be ammunition for other schools to against SJ for enrollment purposes. The two arguments I see coming from this: 1) other schools could use the "we don't have the need for that kind of program at our school, because our kids just don't do that" against SJJ. 2) it's like self-reporting: two schools could have the same number of drug users, but if only one is actually reporting it, the other looks clean. "St John's found 25 kids testing positive for THC. We didn't have any!" - because they didn't test anyone.

As for Ace's comment about not giving any more of his money to the school - I don't give my money to St John's anymore, but this issue wouldn't stop me if I still did. I actually commend them for this, I think it's a worthy cause. While my views on recreational drug use may be mixed, I do think it's something 14 year olds shouldn't be messing with regardless. So I don't see this as being any different than punishing a kid who shows up to class drunk.

(and to clarify my "I don't give my money to St John's anymore" comment, I'm a firm believer in the idea that "every dollar you spend is a vote for the way you want the world to be." A few years ago, St John's went through and laid off just about the entire staff (most notably Mr Andy Babula, easily one of the best math teachers I've ever had), then rehired new teachers at lower wages. Concurrently, St John's was in the middle of a pissing contest with St Francis, and was constructing a monolithic entryway to the school. It was obvious that the powers-that-be at SJJ felt an impressive facade was more important than a quality education, and I decided they no longer deserved my money. Guess they never heard the old mantra about it being what's on the inside that matters.)

A few years ago, St John's went through and laid off just about the entire staff (most notably Mr Andy Babula, easily one of the best math teachers I've ever had), then rehired new teachers at lower wages.

Exactly why I refuse any and all donation requests now.

In no way does it detract from it's excellent academic record, but the perception of St. John's having drug issues---or I should say more issues than the other Catholic schools---goes back to at least the mid-70's.

I know of about a dozen SJ grads over the years who can testify to that, and agree with it, 'it' being a 'perception', not a statement of fact, as there's no way to 'prove' these things.

The typical school of thought is SJ has more students from a 'moneyed' background than Central Catholic or St. Francis, and with that status comes the means to pursue the kinds of distractions discussed here.

Sure you can prove it McCaskey, test everyone. I am not saying its right or wrong, just that it can be proven.

Testing everyone would prove that a certain percentage of SJ students used drugs within the timelines of the testing.

A certain percentage of every high school's students use drugs.

Without standardized testing across the board, for public and private schools in the area, we have no way of knowing whether the % of SJ kids testing positive is above, below and comparable with the 'average'.

or comparable.

I am an SJ Alum. I support this decision. One of the few the school's made in the last 20 years that I have agreed with.

When I went to St. John's I had to take an ethics and morality class. I know that drugs are immoral due to their affect on all classes of society. Being that it is a Catholic school it has a right to regulate morality. Bout time too!

SJ had a big drug problem when I went there and many of the staff turned their head. I'm glad that it won't be tolerated anymore.

I did, however, stop donating to SJ years ago when a dear friend and school staff member was screwed over. I vowed not to donate again until Fr. Vettese was gone. Since then I have been so unhappy with the way the school was run I have my continued financial non-support.

Just my way of standing up for the morality I was taught taught there. Too bad they didn't practice it for so long.

Nothing like ethics and morality enforced at the point of a spear, eh?

Oh and there's complete agreement this approach works? Um...no...

National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University: National Survey of American Attitudes on Substance Abuse

"“Drug testing is not associated with either significantly lower risk scores or lower estimates of student body drug use.”

Journal of School Health: Relationship Between Student Illicit Drug Use and School Drug Testing Policies

"Similar to results for marijuana use, drug testing of any kind and drug testing for cause and suspicion were not significant predictors for use of other illicit drugs among students in grades eight, 10, and 12....Even after controlling for student demographic characteristics, drug testing was not a significant predictor for other illicit drug use in any of the samples"

Eggheads in peer-reviewed studies...what do they know?

Regarding "Christian Morality"--I too sat in that same class. Perhaps the ethics of bullying a cancer foundation, firing loyal workers, and killing a nun and how situations like this occur in such a holy environment should be discussed by the great ethicists of the Church/St. Johns before ramming this alleged "rampant" problem's "solution" down the student's throats?

Eating Grumpy's dressing could get you kicked out of St. John's. It's like UPSO's revenge.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/poppyseed.asp

haha!

I attended a non-Toledo Jesuit high school similar to SJ. There was experimentation with alcohol, tobacco and marijuana. All three remain parts of society as a whole. Sooner or later, all are exposed to these and other vices. No better time to do that and learn of the good and bad that can come from choices than when one is establishing/developing their perspectives in high school.

These and other potential vices are not immoral. Overindulgence in hundreds of things can cause issues for the abuser. Salt, transfats and carbohydrates are in that same group. They are neither moral or immoral.

There is no reason for pot to be illegal and, frankly I might often crutch on the weed to relax after a tiring day - - - were it legal to do so. Smoking pot certainly isn't immoral.

You are for schizzle going to hell Jimavolt!

I attended a non-Toledo Jesuit high school similar to SJ. There was experimentation with alcohol, tobacco and marijuana.

Sister Mary Elephant: Good morning class!
Class: Good morning, Sister! We're all in our places with bright shining faces.
SME: That's nice. Now class, today we're going to conduct a scientific experiment with marijuana. First we'll need a volunteer or two....

From the Toledo Blade: Aged Sister Trampled in Student Stampede

As a St. Francis graduate, I always knew something was going on over on Airport Highway

Vote with your $$$...it speaks the loudest. I see jimavolt already has mailed to SJJ, his opt-out form regarding donation solicitations.

Actually, from the desk of some development office somewhere:

Speaking with your $$ will only go so far. Organizations will stop quite short of allowing donors to drive the bus, creating gift acceptance policies which specifically address the issue. Money follows mission, but the mission can't follow the money.

From a practical standpoint, "donors" who threaten to stop giving until x and y and done, rarely gave much to begin with, and rarely give again "after" for example, "Fr. Vettese is gone." Every donor record that I have ever checked after this threat was well... rather weak to begin with. Not saying that it is always the case, however it has been the case about 30 out of 30 times that I have checked a donor record following a threat.

A major donor who sits down for a discussion with leadership may succeed in being heard, but not necessarily in causing a change in policy. Random average donors who threaten are greeted with a general sense of "thank you for saving us 17 cents on the next mailing."

The greatest gift that a disgruntled donor can give a charity is to actually tell them that they will no longer be donating. That gives the charity the option of doing damage control, or gleefully writing the "donor" off.

Organizations of any sophistication at all know these things, and aren't swayed by the withdrawal of hypothetical future support from people who gave a little bit here or there.

In the long run, organizations that stick to their principles will attract and maintain donors, while organizations who don't get "Komened."

Justread, great post. As having worked in a few nonprofits and having a wife in development, making constituents angry is part of the whole process. When you look at SJJ, with an alumni base in the thousands, and then add the parents and other supporters in the mix, the number of potential donors is quite high. Therefore, it is inevitable that decisions made by senior administrators will piss some of those people off. And frankly, that is a good thing. A donor can not and should not drive the direction of an institution. A donor has the right to call the administration and question the direction, but boards exist for a reason and as a result the donor can either decide to support or jump ship, which some of the above posters have done.

Putting it this way, if an institution made everyone happy, it would seem to me that they were maintaining the status quo. Given today's competitive, especially in terms of enrollment, SJJ can not afford to maintain status quo. There need to be decisions made that push the school forward, both pedagogically and as a faith based institution. If you're not happy, so be it.

I think we can all come on a forum, flame an institution for a decision we don't agree with and swear never to give again, but if the institution really means something to you as past alums, doesn't it make more sense to request a conversation with administrators to get your concerns answered?

I wonder how often and how many they will test?

Actually just read this decision has made me reevaluate donating. I felt Vettese was good his first few years but stayed too long and carried out grudges after a certain point. I can name 3 staff members who left or were forced into smaller roles due to his influence. At least one had been there since the school opened and all had been there for over 15 years. Plus the Jesuits generally move their priests after 5 years so it was abnormal that Vettese was there for so long.

I also was unhappy with the decision to expand to 7th and 8th grades. That was why I held back still.

And yes drugs are both immoral and unethical as is dealing them. SJJ has a problem with both.

What I know from talking to other Titans is this is more for the facaulty then the students. That does not surprise me because I know of a few teachers there who do drugs.

Drugs there have almost become institutional which is why I support this.

Mikey, How will these kids learn to handle drug infused situations that happen in real life? If they're at a neighborhood picnic and someone fires-up a joint - what are they to do? Scold the doobie holder for unethical and immoral conduct, call Fr. Vettese?

Adolescence is the period when a person develops and sets their own standards outside of their family. The smoking of weeds is neither immoral or unethical and although I believe all drugs should be legal, I'm going in a different direction here.

If you don't allow kids to develop their own value systems you are condemning them to a brainless existence with their values system infused into them from the educational system. I don't want that for my son.

I want my son to see and experience the results of both good and bad decisions and to set his own path in life. He will determine his own character and his own standards for living.

Do you really want a kid moving away and going to college without ever having been exposed to pot, alcohol and sex? That seems cruel to the kid.

Jim - How does testing the kids interfere with your kid making the right or wrong decision at a party?

The random testing will scare the shit out of kids and they won't be able to experience the results of good or bad decisions with regard to smoking pot. In a random testing environment, the adolescent can make only the decision to follow the rules or not to follow the rules and risk expulsion. When I went to school, I learned that smoking pot was fun as it numbed my senses, turned my eyes bloodshot, could be smelled on my clothes and located by my mother if stashed at home. All important lessons that had implications to other non-pot parts of my life too.

When will these kids learn these and other lessons or will they "just say no"?

Adolescence is a time for experimentation with things of the world, inclusive of drinking, sex and yes even tobacco and pot.

I was a richer man for each and every experience I had. Parents should not deny kids of learning experiences.

A Clockwork Orange wasn't just a bad ass movie. The subject matter was very prevalent for this topic my fellow ultraviolent droogies.

I get what Jim is saying and I agree. While obviously no one wants their children to become drug addicts or alcoholics, I wouldn't want my child living in a cave during their high school years. If they are planning on heading to college after high school, you can bet your ass they will run into weed and alcohol there. Might as well let them experience it when you still have a little supervision over them in high school.

I think that is the dumbest thing I have heard in a long time.

honestly, i would have been a lot better off without the exposure to drugs i got in high school. :)

Upso, when would you have preferred to be exposed to drugs? When you were in your 20's? 30's? Maybe now that you're running your own business? Pot and other drugs are out there and, my exposure to drugs as I was becoming self-actualized allowed me to determine my own tolerances and policies for various drugs.

It's only a matter of time until the fruitless "war on drugs" is recognized as a failed social experiment. Think of the billions spent in that program that terrorizes people for smoking a weed. Will these protected SJJ kids be able to make sensible decisions on pot once it's decriminalized? Jimmy don't think so.

I started drinking and smoking when I was 16 and my growth was never stunted I'm not all fukced upp. Exposure to good and bad elements of society allows positive internal development. How can a kid ever supposed to develop a ego and super-ego without being exposed to issues that will affect him through the course of his life?

If they are going to drug test students based upon morality, then they should also test for alcohol.

I was exposed to drugs in high school, too. I simply declined to use.

I'll bet many daily blunt smokers are among the best and brighest staff & students @ SJJ.

My Two cents as an abstainer who found out he functions much better in life without drugs and alcohol and as a student who drank and drugged heavily in high school…

I recently attended my 25th High School Reunion. One thing that was pretty clear was the students who were well centered and focused in high school pretty much stayed that way. Percentage wise I am guessing few of these men would have ever abused their wives or children, many attend church and they are respectable dependable citizens (mostly). The ones that were already showing signs of abuse in high school for various reasons too long to get into here fell into a few different camps. There were people like me who took their self-inflicted knocks but turned it around through lessons learned. The other camp were the ones who were still sitting around outdoors smoking, drinking and “enjoying” their habits still. Recognize I am speaking about legal drugs including alcohol at this point. There was also a third category of students who were deceased or jailed because of activities they did under the influence, some activities which hurt the innocent.

I think more than anything I was probably often not just a bad influence in high school but a distraction. I would have caused a few more “rules” to be written in the student code of conduct book. I had taken up a lot of time in the Dean’s office and I was often a distraction in class while other students were trying to learn. I would also be classified as occasionally bullying, frequently cheating and often misbehaving. This was an institution which is a privilege to attend. Whether public or private school it truly is a privilege to be given an opportunity to gain an education!

St. Johns is a private school. Even though I am a student who took his lumps and learned his lesson and would not sacrifice those lessons I also recognize that I was overstepping that privilege and affecting others. If St. Johns wants to cement itself as a premier tier institution dedicated to providing the highest education in the area possible by reducing the threat of having students who fell into my category they are free to do so. In fact, as a person who now values the necessity of educated younger people I support their actions.

You do not attend high school to learn lessons about drugs. You attend to learn math, science… and all that other mumbo jumbo.

Danneskjold, very well said.

I'd add that I don't believe someone must be introduced to or need to experiment with drugs to learn to deal with them later in life.

I also agree with 6th floor. They should test for alcohol too.

The problem many have here is they see drug testing and immediately think marijuana. Now I'm willing to listen to the legalize marijuana debate but drug testing encompasses most of the recreational drugs. No one can explain to me how trying cocaine is necessary in high school.

Maybe the problem is most of the Marines I work with are 18-21, not far removed from high school and dealing with many of the same issues. The biggest problems I've had in the last two years have come from methamphetamines and bath salts. One of those is legal. Yet I would gladly challenge anyone to explain how these are moral, ethical, and necessary for growth. If you don't think these and prescription drugs have penetrated the walls of St. John's then you'd be sorely mistaken.

Additionally I think the testing only reemphasizes the best thing parochial schools can offer over public ones, discipline.

That's a great point!

I recently attended my 25th High School Reunion.

I think one of the most surprising things that I've learned in this thread is that Danneskjold is only about 5 years older than me.

I had envisioned him being somewhere around my in-laws age. (Perhaps because he so often talks about retirement.)

Ok. Focusing on the philanthropy part, my only thought is that amomg persons of capacity who find drug prevention to be a primary focus of their giving, SJJ will find new donors who will offset those who are offended to the point of withholding gifts.