Chicago High School To Require All Students Get Drug Tested

[Speed8098]

No way would I subject my daughter to this humiliation.


(Chicago) -- Beginning next fall, St. Patrick's High School, on the northwest side, will become the first in Illinois to require drug tests of ALL its students.

(snip) Schmidt said parents of St. Patrick's 1,000 students are almost universally supportive. A task force of parents and school staff worked on the plan for several months, although he said talk first began at St. Patrick's in 1999, after DeLaSalle High School in New Orleans began similar testing. The Christian Brothers religious order operates both schools. Another Christian Brothers school, in Memphis, began drug testing in 2001. Schmidt said the St. Patrick's task force used the testing programs at both schools as models.


:wtf: The parents support this kind of invasion? Scary stuff if you ask me.















http://www.wbbm780.com/asp/ViewMoreDetails.asp?ID=31267

[truthisfreedom]

1. this should not be legal unless the parents agree individually.

collecting any samples which contain DNA when no crime has been committed is invasion of privacy. employment is different... you can work for anyone you want. but going to school is required.

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. This is a private school

As such, going there is optional. By going there, the parents endorse this attempt to limit drug use in their children. If they don't like it, they go somewhere else.

Religious schools have some huge advantages over public schools because they can actually expel troublemakers and certainly they might well consider drug users among that lot.

[truthisfreedom]

9. ahh, i missed that.

gettin' late. 8^)

[Walt Starr]

32. Ah yes, but this sort of thig should disqualify such a school

from any type of voucher program.

Of course, that's not what the BFEE wants. They want private schools to be able to discriminate and invade privacy, but the government picks up the tab.

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. Why should this disqualify a school?

Private schools do limit troublemakers and certainly it could be said to be in their best interests to eliminate illegal drug use among students.

[Occulus]

43. My experience with privately-schooled kids:

SNOBS, one and all. They all always thought they were better because they went to a private school.

These are the types of kids that end up being Rumsfelds, Bushes, Perles, and the like.

"private" schools ought to be illegal in general; the only option outside public school should be homeschooling. Private schools are, basically, indoctrination centers.

They teach people that it's ok to thow others aside if they 'just don't fit'.

Sickening.

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. I disagree pretty much across the board

Perhaps it's the types of schools we are talking about. These are not the mega-prep schools that the big name folks attend. These are basic private Catholic schools for ordinary people.

I see no harm in people attending private school if they wish. Further, my experience with people who have attended has been quite positive -- both personally and professionally. Again, I'm a public school kid, too.

[MostlyBlackCat2]

49. Whoa there!

*I* went to a private school - and no one has EVER called me a snob, nor have I given them reason to. Jeez, i'm getting used to the overreactionary blanket statements on DU but this takes a spot in the top five. My father was an ENLISTED man in the military (not an officer) and they sent me to a private school for an education when we were stationed somewhere the public schools were known for violence and truancy. The best thing they ever did, even if I did go kicking and screaming most of the way.

[northzax]

50. uh, you know there's such a thing as reverse snobbery

and you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about it. Frankly, I never set foot in a public school classroom until I was 22 and teaching in one. meanwhile, my parents (teachers themselves, so hardly wealthy, ocntinued to pay taxes to support public education facilities that I wasn't using, in addition to my tuition.

did I get a better education in the private sector than I would have in the public sector? probably. but then my parents shelled out and extra couple of hundred thousand for the priviledge. Does that make me a better person than you? no, but my lack of total and complete bias against a large segment of society certainly doesn't hurt, while yours certainly diminshes my opinion of your comments in general.

[lostnfound]

57. It's sad that you feel that way. Think about a mother's care.

Private schools include things like Waldorf & montessori who want to teach peace not hyper-nationalism.

As the US becomes more fascist, it is becoming heartbreaking as a mother to imagine handing over my son to the custody of government-run repressive and materialistic schools.

And when Bush takes it to the next step, the public schools will all be run by large corporations. I want him to learn about the world but I don't want him indoctrinated by Exxon Mobil or Lockheed Martin. I want him to see himself as a whole person not a cog in the machine.

[kath]

72. "Private schools are, basically, indoctrination centers"

And you think public schools aren't indoctrination centers as well??! Puh-leeze.

[northzax]

79. in fact, didn't Thomas Jefferson promote the idea

of public school as places to indoctrinate citizens in the American Way?

[Le Taz Hot]

46. "Religious schools have some huge advantages

over public schools . . . " Yeah, like cherry-picking, among other things. "Troublemakers" include low achievers, minorities and many other "undesirables." I know. I worked in one. Question those test scores, boys and girls. Always question.

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. Yes, they can cherry pick

But, so what? Speciality public school programs like magnets also cherry pick.

As for getting rid of troublesome students and assigning them to a special school, I think that is valid.

And, again using the Baltimore experience, the Catholic schools there are quite integrated and do NOT eliminate students based on race.

[davidinalameda]

64. private school--seems okay

standards are different

[Scurrilous]

2. My niece attends ...

...an Catholic high school in Miami. She was drug tested prior to admission. Seems to be a growing trend.

[Speed8098]

4. "Seems to be a growing trend."

Yes, and that's the scary part.

How can so many people just lie down and let their fundamental rights to privacy be invaded like this?

Where is the outrage?

[artvark]

5. I don't see the right to privacy in this

Maybe a 4th Amendment claim against unreasonable search.

[tabasco]

82. You're contradicting yourself.

The Fourth Amendment protects the right to privacy. Why do you think an illegal search is illegal?

[Muddleoftheroad]

83. It doesn't matter

The test is voluntary. It is a private school. If you wish to go there, the child takes the test. If not, you have other options.

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. PRIVATE School

Parents voluntarily choose to go to Catholic schools. You voluntarily waive your rights by doing that. And, honestly, the parents are standing up and cheering this idea. Most parents would be afraid to damage trust with their children and make them take drug tests. But they can embrace it when a school does so.

Catholic schools maintain discipline in ways forbidden to the public schools because they can get rid of problem children -- the way public schools used to do. Perhaps we could learn from them.

[Speed8098]

7. "Perhaps we could learn from them."

I went to catholic school for most of my education and let me tell you it's not a pleasant experience.

When i entered 1st grade I was left handed. Not for long. Every time Sister Mary Amadeus caught me writing left handed, she would crack me across the knuckles. Eventually I became right handed and remain so today.

In 4th grade, someone stole a box of redhots out of the desk of the kid that sat next to me. I got blamed. I was not the culprit and I told the principle that. She slapped me across the face 4 or 5 times and asked me again, I again denied it and was rewarded with another series of slaps.
This went on for at least an hour until the nun in charge realized she could beat the sh*t out of me and I still wouldn't fess up to something I didn't do. A couple of day's later, an empty box of redhots turned up in this girls desk. No one apologized for accusing me.

The education was no better than what I got when I transferred to public school in 1970.

The only thing we can learn is NOT to put our children in catholic school.

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. Catholic School

So, your few minor incidents from 30+ years ago are reason to indict the whole of the Catholic school system?

I have lived in two cities with strong Catholic school systems -- Baltimore and D.C. Trust me, when you meet locals and get speaking with them, it is almost easy to spot who went to private school vs. public. It shows in their work, their language skills and their grasp of what is going on in the world.

I don't know a single person who went to Catholic school in either city who doesn't feel it benefited them.

For the record, I went to public school.

[Journeyman]

11. I have two children who attended private school. . .

it was an immense value to one, while the other felt stifled throughout her stay. The one who enjoyed it stayed from preschool through high school, while the other child left for public school in the fourth grade. Both children received excellent educations in the school of their choice, though I've no doubt both would have hated to be in the other child's shoes.

[Speed8098]

14. "For the record, I went to public school"

Therefore, you know not of what you speak.

I only outlined a couple of incidents, but I could write a book about the abuse and injustice I witnessed and was a victim of.

There's an old saying you should heed.

It is better to remain silent and let people think you are a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

I'll pick this up later when I get to work.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. Not so

No man is an island and I have a big family. So I DO know about this issue.

Again, you clearly hated your time in Catholic school. The people I have met, the family members I know who have gone did not.

I have hired numerous people in my working years and the differences in skill level is almost laughable. Private school children invariably have had a better grasp of basic history and English.

[Journeyman]

10. I would say you learned something from Catholic school. . .

though your lesson differed from the one Muddleoftheroad sees. Both ideas have value, however. You're urging the maintenance of a level of human respect in education, Muddleoftheroad seeks a better environment for interested, aware students. I see no conflict here.

[MUAD_DIB]

22. A few of my friends went to catholic school,

but I was spared that wonderful privilege. I still had to go through CCD, and that experience was enough for me. I never knew a nun that had a sense of humor, and they always looked as if they had just finished sucking on a lemon.

One of the problems with Catholicism is that the nuns could address their sins in confession, but they would never have to apologized for falsly accusing you accusing you: dysfuction at its best.

The same thing goes with drug testing. The administration might know a few kids are on drugs so they can't be allowed to trust anybody. They all have to pay.

Jesus H. Jumping Christ! This kind of thing should be left up to the parents to police with their children, and the Catholic Church should pay more attention to the friggin pedofiles that were, and probably still are, amidst their ranks.

Do they have a test for that yet? Of course not. Mother church can do no wrong: infallability you know.


On a side note: Did learing to use your right hand cause any difficulties with you? Right-handed aptitued used to be enforeced, but I think that this is not the case any longer.

[Throckmorton]

77. Nothing like a good beating to get the truth.

Boy does that story sound familiar. I went to catholic schools until the end of the 7th grade, and was subjected to more than a little corporal punishment. Sister Anastasia’s personal favorite was knuckle wraps for being the last in line for lunch. Apparently it never dawned on the old bitch that someone had to be last. And I had the old bat 3 times too, 2, 5 and 7th grade.

When I turned 12, we moved to a rural area and started attending public school. My “Baby” sister who was in 2nd grade at the time we started public school went one year to catholic school. At the end of our first week of public school my mother asked her how she liked the new school, her response was timeless ,”I really like it mommy, they don’t hit you when you make a mistake”. My mother broke out into tears, she just couldn’t see what a six year old might have done to deserve prison camp.

[Malva Zebrina]

13. they are also not required to make public the results of any academic

testing. Problem children in the classroom are really disruptive and annoying and any teacher in their right mind will want that child out. Problem children , including those with physical problems, can count on being thrown out or not accepted in the first place. The rules for providing for the ease of education to those handicapped pupils also do not apply to the private school, and they can refuse entrance to them also. They can choose to keep away from the public , the results of academic tests that for instance , do not show any superiority in the students over that of public school students and release those that are better. No one might ever know if this mandatory drug testing has any effect on the learning of pupils. I don't imagine the parents who support it are interested so much in knowing that as they are in keeping undesirable, socially enept drug addled teens, out and away from their precious children. I suspect those undesirable ones to be those of the minority kids in town.

Additionally, teachers are not required to have any sort of certification as I understand it. Lay persons hired to teach can be anybody and can be paid less.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. Problem children

Yes, private schools can and should delete problem children from their classrooms. Frankly, so should public schools. We used to take out problem children and educate them separately and should again.

Handicapped children are a different issue because it depends on what you mean by that. If you mean simply physically handicapped kids, I see no reason NOT to allow them into a classroom and I think that would be the case. But if they are learning disabled and not able to keep up with the class, then they should not be in the mainstream classrooms. (Yes, I wildly oppose mainstreaming. I feel it holds back the majority of the children for the theoretical benefit of a few.)

At the very last you are quite wrong. I am more familiar with Catholic schools in Baltimore on this one and they not only embrace minority children, but they make a big deal of recruiting and aiding minority children.

[ze_dscherman]

24. Isolating problem children

.. leads to more problems. Of course, problem children need to be taken care of by special support and counselling. But if they remain separated from the rest, it will be much harder for them to integrate. Children learn from each other. If you take this possibility away from them, they will remain troublemakers.

As well, "ordinary" children may benefit very much from integrating the occasional problem child. Life isn't simple, and gaining social skills is as important as learning facts. If the issue is adressed properly, integration works, and learning of the whole class is not hindered.

This is no theoretical speaking. The (experimental, but public) school my children attend has specialised in integrating handicapped/problem children. According to my experience as parent, this has occasionally caused some strain, resulting in a great experience how to overcome social trouble. My daughter now attends an ordinary high school (the experimental school spans 10 years only), and she gets high praise for both social skills and knowledge. As well, her former school has become a model school that got a lot of attention from pedagogues, politicians and the media lately because of superior results in the PISA test.

However, there may be some children that are too troublesome to integrate. This happened in my daughters class - a very rare occasion in that school. A boy from a highly disturbed family was causing so many problems that pupils, teachers and parents had to decide their "social net" was not strong enoug to withstand his destructive impact, and thus he was sent to a special school.

BTW, your language is very offensive. One doesn't "delete" children.

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. Problem Children Ongoing

Yes, we must take care of children with problems, but not to the detriment of the majority of students. That is the big problem. If a student acts out and harms the learning abilities of other students, that student needs to be taught in another environment so THOSE children can continue to learn.

If they proceed to behave in the new environment, they can work their way back to conventional schools, but should have to continue behaving.

Kudos for your daughter and that is great. But for every story like yours there are many where the school systems are mainstreaming children who should not be in conventional classes. The ordinary students then suffer, which is ridiculous.

Sorry about the language choice. No offense was intended. Worked all night. Damn crazy foreign time zones.

[ze_dscherman]

27. Not an isolated incident

What I report from my daughters school is not *one* incident, but the schools policy. The whole school got very good results when social skills were tested.

As I wrote before, dealing with troublemakers also is an important lesson to learn. I very much disagree with you that there are "many" children which should not attend conventional classes. It's much better to deal with them WITHIN an ordinary social context - thus surrounding them with the normality they need to orientate themselves . After all, we talk about children, not hard core criminals.

I agree upon the opinion that integration does not always work and that for the benefit of the whole class sometimes a line has to be drawn.

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. Dealing with troublemakers

While it can be important to learn, it is not so essential that we should limit the educational opportunities of children. To be honest, I am more concerned with the advancement of the children who are not troublemakers.

[Malva Zebrina]

52. Really?

I was not aware of that. How exactly do they "recruit" minority children? Explain please, with suitable factual back up if you have it.

And if private facitilites "should" delete problem children from their classrooms,as you seem to think, and indeed they do so, where do those children go? It is nice for those who can afford to pay for private schooling to think that their children's classroom has been purged of all it's disrupters sho that "their" children can get ahead without having to cope with it, but where do those children go, once ejected?

Is that not a concern for this country--is not the education of all it's children necessary for it's growth and for it's dynamics as a country in the future? Or do we, Ayn Randian types, think only of our own children, when ti comes to giving them the boost they need to be successful in life? IN the long run, I tend to think that parents who can afford the luxury of the private school, are really at heart, RAndians and not anything else.

According to the current statistics, the majority of drug arrests are upon those in the minority classes. I would assume then that the majority of drug users are amongst those in the minority class--either the economic minority or the racial minority. That may or may not be true, as I realize fully, and may be a case of steriotyping, only that may be the rational used by private schools to deny or to avoid admitting those minorities in any significant numbers. They will admit those who will give their private school a good reputation and let the others fall by the wayside. This is not what a public education is about in this country, imo.


Is it not to our advantage as a democracy to see to it that these children from the get go, are educated as well as those who can afford to pay tuition to a private school? HOw many Einsteins are we missing by making our public school system go down the tubes economically, and thus ignoring the education of those less advantaged.

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. They recruit by scholarships

I think it is done on a school by school basis.

There should be schools specifically designed for problem children. I don't care whether those are public or private. Though, if private, some provision would need to be made for those who can't afford it.

Yes, we need to worry about problem children, but not to the detriment of others.

As for drugs, you are wildly wrong IMHO. Just because the arrests for drugs are minority arrests does not mean that minorities use drugs more. Crack, as we all know, has a much harsher penalty and because it is cheap, it is more popular with poor people.

If a school does drug testing, that doesn't eliminate PAST users of drugs. It eliminates CURRENT users of drugs. A valid distinction for them.

Ultimately, the urban and many rural public schools in the U.S. are a joke. Anyone who can get their children out is doing right by the kids.

[Malva Zebrina]

62. hmm

I think it is done on a school by school basis.

You think? I asked you for some proof because I was not aware that Catholic schools recruit from the minority groups. Apparently there is nothing to offer that would support this assertion.


There should be schools specifically designed for problem children. I don't care whether those are public or private. Though, if private, some provision would need to be made for those who can't afford it.

Private schools are not in the business of teaching to "problem" children. It will screw up their academic records. Problem children who are a problem because of a physical handicap, are as deserving as any other child of an education that will enable them to have a life that is in some sense competitive and which will afford them an equal opportunity to success in life.

That they are shunned in the private schools, eighty percent of which are Catholic schools, because the school does not want to be liable to government law that would provide for them and their handicap-- ie special ramps etc. because they do not want to spend the money on it, or they do not want these children on the academic record is a testimony to the snobbery, the fear and the haughty elitism of the private school. Those parents who demand the school cater to their little precious child, and ignore the plight of the shunned child are Randian in outlook, and not Christian by any stretch of the imagination.Although I am certain that their children will be taught to love their fellow human being on a daily basis, in a preposterous display of hypocrisy

The private school is a private club so to speak, and as such, those who can brag they send their children to a private school are bragging about their status in life. They are, of course, doing the best they can for their children--as do all those who send their children to private schools. LOL





Segregating these unfortunate, handicapped children into "separate but equal" schools is what happened to black children until demands were met that they be integrated in the public school system.

Now it is the "disrupters", the less than intelligent, the less than priviledged, the less than everything in everyway, children -and oh it is sooooo elite to look down from that ivory tower and say that since it is a "private" school, it has a perfect right to make the rules and we don't want no problem children,handicapped children, drugged children (ritalin excepted) or children who go against the grain or too many minority children in here.

Our children by their birthright of being born into a family with nore than enough money to pay for it's children to be separated from the dregs and the drugged, deserve to be separate from this riff raff, this less than, this disrupter--because they are our children and we want to do the best for them we can.

You see--when it comes down to blood and one's own children, people revert back to selfish goals and Randian politics.

[Muddleoftheroad]

74. Selfish goals

Yes, when it comes to your own children you would rather they get a good education than a less than adequate one. Go figure.

As for scholarships, in my experience it is done on a school basis. I don't know if the archdiocese ALSO has scholarships or not (which is why I was vague), but I do know individual schools do. How do I know? Family members who attended a couple different Baltimore Catholic schools.

Yes, problem children who have handicaps are deserving of an education, "that will enable them to have a life that is in some sense competitive and which will afford them an equal opportunity to success in life." However, NOT at the disadvantage of other students. If a child is sufficiently handicapped that he/she interferes with instruction or holds back a class, then that child can and must be taught in another more appropriate setting.

I have a question as I deal with your rant about how Catholic schools don't want handicapped kids. Have you spent any time in any Catholic schools? I have. They typically have older facilities. They don't have elevators, they have stairs. They don't have the money to draw upon to massively redo their buildings for one or two children. Of course public schools can do this because they can just tax us all the more.

It is not "Randian" to want the best for your child and not have other children hold your loved ones back. It is realistic. Minor concessions are one thing. Expecting a school on a tiny budget to totally revamp their infrastructure is ridiculous.

Actually, many private Catholic schools are not clubs, but affiliated to churches. These are places where parents, disgusted by the drugs, the sex, the lack of morals in the public school system, can send their children and expect education, discipline and a moral upbringing.

Amazing how warped some folks can be.

Children who can function with other children without disrupting the class should be incorporated whenever possible. But children are there to learn things like math and science and are not there to be caretakers of their classmates.

As for the troublemakers, I have no sympathy for them. Maybe they are more mild where you come from. In Baltimore and D.C., they are not. Many are thugs, drug dealers and worse. There was one school in Baltimore where things got so bad that they had to send in police to simply retake the school after robberies, assaults and rapes had gotten out of control.

Frankly, ALL children deserve the right to be separated from such riff raff. But I can't fix the nation's schools over night. I can fix things for my family up to the limit of my ability and I will do everything in my power to prevent any of them from going through that.

And, my doing so is the most natural human emotion, caring for your family. You try to paint it as a bad thing when it is not.

[northzax]

51. certification is a joke, mostly

I know, I have certification in California and DC. Both required a couple of standardized tests, and a few classes that were a complete waste of time. Private schools have the notable advantage in that they can hire and fire based on the model they are looking for in a teacher. They are free to pick and choose the teachers they want, that work well within their system. most public schools don't have that luxury. What would you rather have, and experienced, energetic teacher who isn't certified, or one who is and doesn't give a damn? that's how little that piece of paper means. My first year of teaching I spent 8 hours a week in classes to get 'certified' that was 8 hours of lectures. 8 fewer hours I spent working on my classroom, my teaching or my lesson planning. I was sitting in classes teaching basic theory, containing mostly people who had never stepped foot behind the Big Desk. it was a total and complete waste of time.

I have no doubt that teacher education can be a great thing. I know many teachers who take great advantage of continuing education to improve their knowledge and their skills. and I know others who are forced to take useless classes because some politician on the school board decided to make them get a piece of paper. Politically designed education, which is what "teacher certification' is, is mostly useless. Politicians don't decide what classes a doctor has to take before getting his license, or a lawyer, or an accountant. they leave those decisions up to Doctors, Accountants and Lawyers. But they do decide what's important for Teachers. Even thought they may have no first hand knowledge of the profession. absurd.

[Malva Zebrina]

53. still

I would prefer a teacher that is certified and taught some ethics that would and should be expected in that postion to one who may be a good, even an excellent, teacher to rich white kids, but who is biased, prejudiced and completely tuned in to a one way mind. Of course, if that teacher is teaching in an all white, private school, she or he, fits right in.

There needs to be a standard, imo, no matter how much one disdains it or complains about the annoyance of it all. It is, to me, like hiring a nurse who has not been taught up to date nursing skills, to take care of sick people because she is real good at it and has great reviews--but who is so biased in her approach that she causes more harm than she does good.

[northzax]

63. of course there should be standards

but who decides what appropriate nursing skills are? the nursing profession, of course.

what makes you think that Ethics have anything to do with teacher education? certainly, there are some teachers with ethical problems, but I think, if you really looked at it, that the percentage of teachers with real biases is just as great in the public sector as the private sector.

Lawyers learn 'ethics' accountants learn 'ethics' how's that working for you? Most private school teachers I know love to teach, and the private school setting makes that more possible for them than the public one, at this time. When I was teaching in the public sector, I was required, by district policy, to follow the teacher's manual directly. I could choose additional reading material, but only if it was from a list provided to me. I was required to spend two hours a day teaching test preparation. There was no room for creativity, there was no room for improvisation, there was no room for teaching things my class might be interested in, or varying the speed of the subject. I was a glorified Kaplan Test-Prep instructor. I have also taught in the private sector. And how I taught was up to me. As long as my students learned the material, and the skills they were supposed to, it didn't matter how I did it, within bounds. In the public sector, I was not supposed to give out my home number. In my private school, my number and address were published in the school directory. In the public school, I was required, by my union contract, to never touch a student. No hugs, no pats on the back, no nothing. in the private school, I was a jungle gym at recess. The entire public school system in this country is designed to be antagonistic. Have you ever had someone twenty years older than you call you Mr. or Ms.? And be uncomfortable with your first name? that's unethical. moving from the public to the private sector I took a $10K pay cut in exchange for half the students, better facilities, better accountability and a friendly relationship with parents and students, one without formality and centralised authority enforced by a remote entity. When public schools are allowed to become part of the community again, when they are allowed to be responsive to their clientele, the parents and students of the community, and not to some one-size-fits-all model designed by the State, then perhaps the world will change. until then, the bias you speak of comes into play in the public schools much more than the private ones. The system is set up to promote bias, the bias that students can't learn, and that teachers can't teach. and, with the exception of the few schools that are in districts that give them leeway, and are administered by excellent leaders, that bias holds true. You treat your employees, or your students, based on the lowest common denominator, and you will get just that, the lowest avaliable. The system drives the talented out, be they students or teachers, by assuming that they cannot succeed without following a strict rubric. Teaching, like most other professions, including nursing (your example) is an art. I can teach you the rudimentary skills of how to teach. someone else can teach you the rudimentary skills of how to be a nurse. If that's as far as society goes, rudimentary skills followed by a denial of creativity, then we are stuck with a grey wall of teachers and nurses, as the machine drives the spark out of them. But if you don't have the desire to be great, if you aren't rewarded for going above and beyond, only for being the same as your peers, you will never be great. you will never have a real incentive to be great. If your nurse is reprimanded for fluffing your pillow, for holding your hand while you get an injection, do you think you'll get those services? If your nurse knows that at hospital A, she is rewarded for doing the nuts and bolts of her job, while at Hospital B, she's rewarded for being cheerful, creative AND doing the nuts and bolts of her job, which place do you think is going to get the better nurses? which hospital do you want to stay overnight in? the one that allows nurses to have a personality, or the one that expects robots?

Teachers are professionals, why do we not treat them that way?

[Malva Zebrina]

66. I appreciate your passion and you are probably a good teacher

and perhaps the thing to do is to try to fix that public school system and work toward it. Nevertheless, I have had contact with many, many teachers--both working and retired -- I have been appalled, on the whole, at their unprofessionalism and lack of ability to distance themselves and their job from their own feelings re race, religion, economic background of a particular pupil and above all BLAMING parents for their own lack of ability to teach the pupils. This is my observation. The amount of harping on the lack of parenting skills and the susequent awful children they are FORCED to teach because of these awful, below standard parents, belies a certain unprofessionalism and prejudice toward the children they are teaching. To a certain extent, some parents who do remove their children from a school in order to home school because of prejudice against their child, do have a case.

[northzax]

81. of course not

why would you expect teachers to act professionaly? they aren't treated professionaly, or paid as professionals. why would they act like it, after 30 years of being told they are failures? If we wan't a professional teaching corps in this country, we had better be prepared to treat teachers in that manner. That means allowing for self-certification by the industry. that means not requiring them to jump through hoops, at their own expense, to remain employed. That means paying tem like valued members of the community. not that tough, just requires a complete change in the mindset of society, from teaching as a profession for women until they get married and have kids, to teaching as a profession, withthe requisite skill set, at least equal to that of an accountant. Teachers, in order to become certified, spend as much time in school as lawyers. think about that.

[Occulus]

44. yeah, by throwing out the one who don't fit

Honestly, Muddled, you have real strange ideas of what democratic society really means. Private schools foster the exact opposite attitudes this country was founded on.

"...they can get rid of the problem children."

Yeah, ok, sure. "get rid of".... like, wow.

Why not just shoot the ones who don't conform and get it over with? What you're advocating is an authority figure telling a kid that it's NOT ok to be different, to hold different values, to, say, interpret a controversial Biblical verse differently than the official school position....

Sometimes, I really do wonder about just which side of the fence you're on, dude. You message is that maybe public schools should make all the kids conform to one 'party line', so to speak. Remember, 'problem kids' for these schools are anyone there who thinks or believes outside the rules set forth in their code of ethics or school rules or whatever.

Conform or you will be forced to leave. That's what these kids are being taught, and somehow, you're agreeing with them. I, for one, see that as an attack on democratic principles.

There's a word that starts with an F and ends sounding like 'reapers', but I can't remember what it is. Anyway, it describes people like the ones running this school.

[Speed8098]

86. "You voluntarily waive your rights by doing that."

Where did you get the idea that you waive your rights when you choose to PAY big bucks to send your children to private school??

That is an obsurd statement if I ever saw one.

Look I started this thread because I think drug testing is ridiculous.

It is an invasion of your privacy and urine tests are unreliable. A child's life can be ruined because of a false positive.

Are you sure you're on the right board Muddle. It seems as if you are endorsing drug testing. Are you? And if yes, why?

[Muddleoftheroad]

87. You don't have to go to the school

So if they set drug testing as a condition, then you either go or you don't. Simple really.

Actually, I've never been drug tested -- wrong profession for it I guess. However, I am endorsing the right of choice. If a parent wishes to send a child to a school that does drug testing, that is the parent's choice.

Are you sure YOU are on the right board?

[Speed8098]

88. "Actually, I've never been drug tested"

Wow, you have a wealth of knowledge for someone who has never experienced anything relevant to this post.

You never went to catholic school, yet you praise how much better they are at educating students than public schools.

You've never been drug tested, yet you advocate putting children through this humiliating experience, even though they have been accused of nothing.

I have experienced both. Therefore I know of what I speak.

You, my friend, do not.

[Muddleoftheroad]

89. Relevant?

Dealing with school from a first person account has nothing to do with this? Having family members go through private Catholic school has nothing to do with this?

You are quite humorous or quite desperate to discredit me.

As for the Catholic schools, I have hired quite a bunch and, sad to say, hired some less capable public school grads.

As for what I am advocating here is parental choice. If you are a parent and wish to send your kids to this school, that is YOUR choice, not the choice of your children. If the school does it, I can certainly see why they do. I've lived through enough drug use in my neighborhood to NOT need an explanation from them.

[Speed8098]

90. " "As for what I am advocating here is parental choice."

What you're advocating is the parents choice to humiliate their children for no reason.

Choice is not the subject, drug testing children is.

No matter how you put it, it is wrong.

If you want to have your children feel that you don't trust them, when they haven't done anything to cause that mistrust, then so be it.

That may be the type of world you want to live in, but it's not for me.

[Muddleoftheroad]

91. Parental Choice is ENTIRELY the issue

Parents have to make hard choices for their children.

If a parent has reason to send a child to a school where they do drug tests, I trust the parent. You do not.

I have seen many parents who have reason to not trust their children. Children who lie, cheat, steal, sell drugs or commit violence. Those children need more discipline than the public schools provide.

[Occulus]

98. He does things like this

in every thread he posts on.

[drfemoe]

17. It is outrageous

Drug tests are not 100% accurate (even in a hospital setting)
.. I know from my own experience.
If the numbers on the test were correct, I would have been in a COMA. It was later admitted that "sometimes that happens".
They screw UP! And your whole life (job, insurance, medical, legal) can be ruined.

I think SCOTUS has ruled that just about anyone can test for drugs for any reason. We need a new case.

I also had been "hired" at a drug testing lab (years ago). You tell them what medicines you're taking. I was taking a migraine medication. Even though I didn't have anything illegal, they rescinded the offer because of my 'headaches'. They also tested for pregnancy without my consent.

I knew someone who went to a head shop and told the clerk she was going to have a drug test, and needed something to clean her system. The clerk freaked out .. he said now I can't sell you anything .. you're not supposed to say that!! She had to go to another store and say the *right* thing ...

A couple of years ago, a local high school was planning to drug test all the students as they attended the Prom. A group of students got together and planned their own alternative Prom.

I took uranalysis courses in college. You can learn a LOT about a person from one urine sample (even the approximate weight of the 'donor'). It is invasion of privacy.
But our society seems to be addicted to drug testing!!

Drug War . one more loser we dump $$ into ..

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. Why is this outrageous?

This is a private school. The parents choose to send kids there. The school enacts the policies it considers wise. I don't know about this case, but in most drug testing, a positive test causes a retest.

[drfemoe]

21. they don't always retest

depends on the circumstances.

Maybe I should have mentioned that I was replying to #4 "Seems to be a Growing Trend", and not the main story.

Sure, if a private school wants to do this, there is implied consent. Part of their tuition goes to pay for the testing.
I still don't like it. .. my post explains some of the reasons.

[Sterling]

71. Outrageous Fascism?

Outrageous Fascism? Outrageous does not do your position justice. Ayn Rand would be so proud. Social Darwinisn at it’s best.

[Vernunft]

12. My wife was in a catholic school in Providence RI...

from what she tells me I´d rather drown my kids then send them to a church run school. Although it´d be an interesting experience how they´d deal with a kid that has a satanist dad and a mother practicing wicca, hehehe. But I think I´d forgo that experiment for the sake of our children...

[Sushi_lover]

19. I have no problem with this until public schools are phased out

The right wingers who support private school vouchers I suspect would not mind if public schools are completely shut down. Their rationale is that private can do it better and reduce the tax burden.

So when I have no choice but to go to the Christian school, what right to privacy do I have then?

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. Public vs. Private

Maybe the private schools can't do better all the time, but as a veteran of dealing with the D.C. school system, sometimes they can't do any worse.

Being poor in D.C. is like a prison sentence. You can't get out because the real way to get out is through education and that system is disgusting.

If we ended up fully privatizing education, which I wildly doubt, I am sure others would feel as you do and start private secular academies.

[Sushi_lover]

23. In smaller Georgia towns, a 2nd private school is unlikely.

Where I live, the churches inspire the new private schools.

Folks would find it easier to move than to try to start a 2nd private school that wasn't run by a church.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. When we privatize education

Get back to me. Since I doubt it will happen in a big way, I am unconcerned.

[Dogmudgeon]

31. Would you be so supportive if ...

... a private school opened that required all its girl students to be clitorally "circumcised" by age 13?

After all, it's private, and the child is completely subject to the whims of the adult.

"Christian" (including "Catholic") schools depend on public worship of the false idol of religious privacy to support their sick and twisted practices. There would be an outcry over female genital mutilation, or making the kids smoke pot as part of a religious requirement, or teaching them to slaughter small animals in ritual sacrifice.

On the other hand, practices like making kids produce urine, heavy indoctrination into science-fantasy, all the way up to severe and prolonged whipping, are all considered acceptible "religious" pedagogy.

In many cases, I think "private" is fine and dandy. Kids wearing uniforms? If the religious order wants its children to resemble little members of the Scienlotogy Sea Org, that's their own stupidity to bear. But there are some things that should not be this kind of "private", and if God wants to smite eeevil secular society for enforcing its rules, let Him smite to His vindictive heart's content, as He will, anwyay.

--bkl

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. This is like an army of strawmen

From drug testing to clitoral mutilation. That's not a leap, it's like the cow jumping over the moon.

... a private school opened that required all its girl students to be clitorally "circumcised" by age 13?

So what, "sick and twisted practices" are you up in arms about?

Prolonged whipping? Yes, private schools can discipline children, but prolonged whipping would clearly be child abuse and assault.

Wow, you even hate school uniforms. What do you like?

[Dogmudgeon]

70. Why they are strawmen

Because you say so?

Right.

The circumcision thing wasn't the cow jumping over the moon. It was me wondering how far the worship of "religious privacy" would go. It is certainly invoked in the mainly Islamic parts of the world where it is practiced, in spite of being against Islamic law. Damn near every crime committed against a child can be excused if it's framed as a question of religious freedom, especially if "discipline" is involved.

And no, I don't mean just a swat or five on the rear end. Prolonged whipping is just that -- there have been many well-documented cases of religious schools beating children until they were seriously injured. Some of the "whippin's", "paddlin's", and "spankin's" have been reported as being drawn out over several hours.

Sick and twisted practices include such strawmen as the ones I described in the last paragraph; pedophilia being practiced and hidden by the clergy; physical punishment not involving beating, such as denying children the use of a bathroom for over 6 hours, or enforced physical exercise especially in hot weather; teaching children not only that abortion is murder, but that abortion providers are murderers and deserve to die; and any number of other strawmen that are immediately jumped on by conservative legal operatives in the name of religious freedom.

Just check out some of their web sites, where they describe their "rights" to murder the souls of children as a holy crusade. The Religious Right not only hates adult sex, it hates the idea of childhood without mortal fear.

And I don't really hate school uniforms. I just think that under most circumstances, they're pretty stupid, and underscore the smug disrespect many religious organizations have for their followers.

And what the hell does wearing uniforms have to do with the Gospel? I don't know of any Christian schools that don't require uniforms except for a few Quaker schools.

What do I like? Raising children so that they won't be obedient, indoctrinated robots.

Sadly, most conservative religions prefer obedient, indoctrinated robots.

--bkl

[Muddleoftheroad]

76. Religious freedom

Personally, I think the circumcision thing is a wild example and that would never pass muster in the U.S. As much as we separate church and state, we still only muster mild tolerance for wacko practices of non-Christian religions. And female circumcision is a wacko practice that I have NO tolerance for.

There is no excuse for prolonged whipping -- though that was popular 50-100 years ago, especially in boarding schools. It is up to families and prosecutors to see that this is stopped.

Next you go off on several topics that seem to me to all express issues with the Catholic Church. I am sorry, but no institution is perfect. However, I disagree wildly with you that teaching that abortion is murder is in any way child abuse. I don't agree with it, but it IS freedom of speech and freedom of religion to do so.

Having lived through the urban stupidity of gang colors and gang apparel, I see the usefulness of school uniforms. No fights over gang colors. No attempts to steal cool clothes from weaker classmates. No one wants school uniforms after all.

Wearing uniforms is a way of keeping children obedient, but you and I differ of the need for that. I see a need to do so in school. You do not.

[R Hickey]

29. They should test the kids twice every day, then.

Although Rush Limbaugh's hillbilly-heroin would show up on this private school's urine test, and occational pot usage also would, the more dangerous drugs kids these days use, like speed, cocaine, PCP, extascy, mushrooms, LSD, tobacco and alchohol, are metabolized by their bodies more quickly, so that in order to be accurate or effective, the school would have to test the kid's urine every day.

The drug-testing corporations are making a financial killing, and with enough well placed campaign-bribes, they will probably continue to boom.

I predict more and more piss tests in our nation's future. Americans are the most drug-tested population on earth, and also the most imprisoned for non-violent drug use. The drug war is big money for many corporations who pay huge campaign bribes to politicians so they will keep it going.

I know a retired friend who just applied for a part-time janitorial position in our local public library. The job's only work was cleaning the restrooms, washing the sinks and swabbing toilets after the library was closed, on weekends only. A piss test was required.

[0007]

41. I was thinking about four times a day!

[pfitz59]

30. Religion is the opiate of the masses.....

No amount of pee testing will clear them of THAT addiction!

[Cheswick2.0]

39. so says Karl Marx... so it must be true

:eyes:

[markses]

47. No No No - So says Karl Marx

So it *can't* be true, yeah?
:eyes:

Of course, one could be irritated by what some see as Marx's version of false consciousness and religion, but then one would have to make that argument. Or so it seems to me. I personally don't like this "opiate of the masses" language - but not merely because its from Marx. I agree with many of marx's analysis - after, of course, having read through them carefully and submitted them to my own analyses. But then, I suppose it's much easier to just say "Marx said it" and dismiss it on that basis...

[pfitz59]

84. So sez I......

And I know it to be true. Religoids are as delusional as the worst drug addict!

[Muddleoftheroad]

85. Unsurprising attack

Yes, anyone who dares have faith or believe in God must somehow be awful.

Your bigotry is astounding.

[Drifter]

34. Poppy protest ...

Protest this insane Idea by getting as many kids as possible to have a poppy seed muffin everyday before school. This will cause false positives, that will be more bother than the few kids who are actually doing drugs.

Who is paying for this ?
Don't we have better things to spend money on ?

Cheers
Drifter

[Dolomite]

36. Ahh… Can you smell that, Son?

That’s the smell of the utopian drug war environment… You know that smell?

It smells like… Victory.


I can think of a lot of reasons to begin drug-testing children as soon as possible…

…Unfortunately they are all along the lines of desensitizing future citizenry to the idea of living under a draconian government.

There’s a word for the weirdoes that can’t wait to get children to replace their inept parents with the warm beep and whir of the spectrometric immunoassay machine. That only a herd of third graders lined up outside of a restroom clutching plastic cups and legal paperwork they’ll never understand represents calm and order. These are the ones who fervently believe that education begins and ends with the submission of a warm cup of clean pee.

They’re called: PEDO-COPROPHILLIACS

[ElsewheresDaughter]

37. hope none of these students have eaten poppy seed bagels or rolls in the

for at least 2 weeks before the drug testing...or else they will test positive

[malachi]

38. Will they test the Brothers and Lay teachers as well?

[0007]

42. I think the parents should be tested at least twice a week, 'eh?

[Cheswick2.0]

40. if these parents are paying to send their kids to this school and ...

they approve :shrug:

Don't pretend that they are uninvolved parents. They may be making a mistake, but they want their kids free of drugs. That is not such a bad goal.
I personally would not send my kids to a private catholic school, but it is not the drug testing that would scare me away.

[Liberal Veteran]

54. Okay, flame me if you will, but I think this is wrongheaded....

Forcing students to take a drug test with no evidence of wrongdoing sets a horrible precedent.

I have always found drug testing to be humiliating and misguided unless there was real reason to suspect someone of drug use.

What the fuck happened to our 4rh amendment which states:
Amendment IV

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I see no inherent difference between this idiotic drug testing and just allowing the authorities to enter your house without warrants or probable cause. Your body is as least as sacred as your house.

I think it's an affront to freedom.

So flame away because you WILL NOT change my mind. Private school, public school, I don't care. It's still an obscenity.

[monobrau]

56. That damage is already done

The fact that it's a catholic school shows that the kids have already been declared guilty of being sinners whose only path to redemption is submission to authority. We all know what kind of people come out of strict catholic schools.

[Malva Zebrina]

55. and of course

the most famous of all drugged teens were the two Columbine murderers

What drugs were they on? I think a prescription drug, if I am not mistaken--prescribed by a doctor, if I am not mistaken. Please do let me know if I am mistaken.

and how many little kids have been drugged up on Ritalin in order to make them more suitable to be disciplined and not disrupt a class of perfectly behaved little fat white kids whose parents have the money to send them to a private school?(and who are complaining that they have to pay "twice" for their child's education-therfore, almost demanding the government give them a refund in the form of vouchers)

Ritalin is the drug of choice for "disruptive" kids and that is, imo, a total , damn sick thing to do to a child who is "disruptive"

[northzax]

65. first off

a large percentage of students in Catholic Schools, especially urban ones, are non-whites. so enough of the race-baiting.

second off, vouchers will have ZERO effect on non-religious private schools, almost all of which are WAY to expensive for vouchers to make a difference. the prep school I atetnded is now $18,000+ a year. Think they'll take a $4000 voucher instead of the $18,000? yeah, me neither. Vouchers come with a caveat, any school that accepts them will have to a: accept them as the full tuition and B: accept all qualified students who apply with vouchers. It will change the dynamics of religious-supported schools, not independant private ones.

Most of the "ritalin" proscirbed goes to public school or religous school students. mostly white, mostly upper middle class. You're missing your targets here.

and what, out of curiosity does this rampage against ritalin have to do with the issue at hand? Sure, it may be overprescribed, but for the children who truely do need it, it can be a godsend. Have you ever dealt with a child who is truly ADD? I thought not. Have you ever had a student (you are, after all this criticism a teacher, right?) who physically cannot sit still? who cannot concentrate, and hates himself, his classmates and school because of it? Ever had a student who thinks he's dumb because he can't pay attention long enough to read an entire page? and then seen what the judicious use of ritalin can do? seen the relief in his eyes when he can be still, for once? when his mind is calm enough that he can read a page, on his favourite subject no less, without interruption? a student who doesn't think he's dumb anymore? ADD and ADHD are physical conditions. overdiagnosed, perhaps, but certainly real. and completely irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is the voluntary testing for illegal substances. I wouldn't subject my children (if I had any) to this but other parents can choose to, if they wish.

[Malva Zebrina]

68. Need to have some documentation

a large percentage of students in Catholic Schools, especially urban ones, are non-whites. so enough of the race-baiting.

I will certainly retract my statement and apologize profusely, if you could provide some stats to prove that. I doubt very much whether a "large percentage" of students in Catholic Schools are non white, nationally.

second off, vouchers will have ZERO effect on non-religious private schools, almost all of which are WAY to expensive for vouchers to make a difference. the prep school I atetnded is now $18,000+ a year.

I think that would support my point to some degree. Does your prep school have a significant number of non white poor students on it's roll? Do you think your prep school is better than a public school, and why?


Most of the "ritalin" proscirbed goes to public school or religous school students. mostly white, mostly upper middle class. You're missing your targets here.

Well I really have no specific target. Are you asserting that there are more religious school, white upper middle class students that are on Ritalin, These would be students , supposedly, with a so called "attention deficit disorder" The symptoms of which are vague and arbitrary?

My point is that the administration of Ritalin to so many pupils, no matter who they may be, is obscene and is unwarranted. I think the diagnosis of ADD is an overly used, sometimes manufactured diagnosis and I think the administraion of a drug to little children to control them in a classroom is also obscene. If the child has a problem, pop him or her a pill--all better! At one time there was no such thing as ADD. Kids went to school--they learned--they graduated, went on to live productive lives, had families and no one ever suspected that their kids had a psychological or physical disorder called ADD that needed a drug so the kid would behave.

Ritalin, in the fifites, was a drug that was given for high blood pressure. It was soon discovered that it could be of some use to patients who had the mental illness called manic-depression----today the term bi-polar affliction is bandied about to describe numerous different personalities, but ADD is NOTHING like the manic-depressive illness described clinically and for which patients were hospitalized for before the advent of psychotropic drugs.. These patients, back then, were then administered Ritalin, the drug previously used to control high blood pressure. After a period of time on the drug, they developed symptoms that were indicative of long term use--a shuffling, zombie like, gait, a zombie like affect--flat and unresponsive, excessive drooling to the point where wearing a bib was necessary--think Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest after he had a frontal lobotomy. This was what the drug was. And now we hand it out to little children to control their behavior in a classroom because something is wrong and the teachers cannot cope with it and parents are all too willing or desperate to make their child "normal" My point is that the kids who will be tested for drug abuse, most likely will not be tested for this drug since it is most likely prescribed by a doctor. Yet, in my opinion, they are drugged.

Talking Back to Ritalin by Peter R. Breggin, M.D. is published by Common Courage Press, P.O. Box 702, Monroe, Maine 04951. Phone: [phone].

•Several million children are being treated with Ritalin and other stimulants on the grounds that they have attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and suffer from inattention, hyperactivity, or impulsivity. The stimulants include: Ritalin (methylphenidate), Dexedrine and DextroStat (dextroamphetamine or d-amphetamine), Adderall (d-amphetamine and amphetamine mixture), Desoxyn and Gradumet (methamphetamine), and Cylert (pemoline). Except for Cylert, all of these drugs have nearly identical effects and side effects. Ritalin and the amphetamines can for most purposes be considered one type of drug.


•The number of children being drugged has escalated several-fold in the last few years.


•Ritalin and amphetamine have almost identical adverse effects on the brain, mind and behavior, including the production of drug-induced behavioral disorders, psychosis, mania, drug abuse, and addiction.


•Ritalin and amphetamine frequently cause the very same problems they are supposed to treat--inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity.


•A large percentage of children become robotic, lethargic, depressed, or withdrawn on stimulants.


•Ritalin can cause permanent neurological tics including Tourette's syndrome.


•Ritalin can retard growth in children by disrupting the cycles of growth hormone released by the pituitary gland.


•The recent finding that Ritalin can cause cancer in some animals was not taken seriously enough by the drug company or the FDA.


•Ritalin routinely causes gross malfunctions in the brain of the child. There is research evidence from a few controlled scientific studies that Ritalin can cause shrinkage (atrophy) or other permanent physical abnormalities in the brain.


•Withdrawal from Ritalin can cause emotional suffering, including depression, exhaustion, and suicide. This can make children seem psychiatrically disturbed and lead mistakenly to increased doses of medication.


•Ritalin is addictive and can become a gateway drug to other addictions. It is a common drug of abuse among children and adults.


•ADHD and Ritalin are American and Canadian medical fads. The U.S. uses 90% of the world's Ritalin. CibaGeneva Pharmaceuticals (also known as Ciba-Geigy Corporation), a division of Novartis, is the manufacturer of Ritalin. It is trying to expand the Ritalin market to Europe and the rest of the world.


•Ritalin "works" by producing malfunctions in the brain rather than by improving brain function. This is the only way it works.
•Short-term, Ritalin suppresses creative, spontaneous and autonomous activity in children, making them more docile and obedient, and more willing to comply with rote, boring tasks, such as classroom school work and homework.


•Short-term, Ritalin has no positive effect on a child's psychology or on academic performance and achievement. This is confirmed by innumerable studies and by many professional reviews of the literature.


•Longer-term, beyond several weeks, Ritalin has no positive effects on any aspect of a child's life.


•Labeling children with ADHD and treating them with Ritalin can keep them out of the armed services, limit their future career choices, and stigmatize them for life. It can ruin their own self image, subtly demoralize them, and discourage them from reaching their full potential.


•There is no solid evidence that ADHD is a genuine disorder or disease of any kind.

•There is a great deal of research to confirm that environmental problems cause ADHD-like symptoms.


•A very small number of children may suffer ADHD-like symptoms because of physical disorders, such as lead poisoning, drug intoxication, exhaustion, and head injury. Physical causes may be more common among poor communities in the United States.


•There is no proof of any physical abnormalities in the brains or bodies of children who are routinely labeled ADHD. They do not have known biochemical imbalances or "crossed wires."


•ADHD is a controversial diagnosis with little or no scientific or medical basis. A parent, teacher, or doctor can feel in good company when utterly dismissing the diagnosis and refusing to apply it to children.


•Ciba spends millions of dollars to sell parent groups and doctors on the idea of using Ritalin. Ciba helps to support the parent group, CH.A.D.D., and organized psychiatry.


•The U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) push Ritalin as vigorously as the manufacturer of the drug, often in even more glowing terms than the drug company could get away with legally.


Our society has institutionalized drug abuse among our children. Worse yet, we abuse our children with drugs rather than making the effort to find better ways to meet their needs. In the long run, we are giving our children a very bad lesson--that drugs are the answer to emotional problems. We are encouraging a generation of youngsters to grow up relying on psychiatric drugs rather than on themselves and other human resources.
The material in this summary is documented with citations to scientific literature in Talking Back to Ritalin. The book also describes non-drug approaches to helping children diagnosed ADHD through identifying and meeting the basic needs of children, and through improvements in school and family life.
If you want to support efforts to stop the psychiatric drugging of children, and to receive a newsletter, we invite you to join the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology, 4628 Chestnut Street, Bethesda, MD, 20814. Visit our web site at www.breggin.com

[northzax]

78. well, I can't give you national numbers

but here is a listing of the Catholic Elementary Schools in the District of Columbia:http://www.adw.org/education/elem_dc.html



That map represents the locations of each and every school in the diocese. If you go to the webpage, you'll see the tuition rates for each school. you will notice that the schools in upper NW DC, which are predominantly white neighborhoods, charge different rates for Catholics and non-catholics. The ones in SE and NE do not. That leads to the supposition that there aren't actually enough Catholics to fill the spots, so they can't charge a premium for non catholics. I count 28 schools, of which 9 are not in neighborhood with an overwhelming minority population. I guarantee you that no white families are bussing their kids into the 1500 block of E Capitol Street. or to the 700 block of N Street, NW. it's not happening. I would bet you my trust fund that Our Lady of Perpetual Help School on V Street, SE is over 95% "Minority" but enough of that.

According the the National Catholic Educational Association (http://www.ncea.org/newinfo/mediareleases/newsdetail.asp?release_id=28) in 2001, Nationwide, Catholic Schools had a miniroty population of 25.6, while the census bureau lists the overall percentage of minority population in the US as 25.2 percent. which makes Catholic Schools, as a whole, less white than the general population. is that a large enough porportion for you?

No, actually, my prep school did not have a significant number of poor students, since it is rare for poor students to have the cash to pay for it. the minority population was about 12 percent when I was there, roughly reflective of the city.

I never said Ritalin wasn't overprescribed, but anyone who denies it's effectiveness on children who really can use it is blind.

[AP]

58. Graft: school board's getting kick backs form drug test kit sellers.

I bet that's what you'd find if you scratched the surface of this story.

[Scurrilous]

69. There's a lot of truth to that...

...I can remember when Wayne (Blockbuster) Huzienga got into the drug testing business here in Florida. He immediately dispatched his cadre of lobbyists to Tallahassee to push for mandatory drug tests in Florida public high schools. All for the sake of the children, of course.

[Bridget Burke]

60. As a private school, it's their right.

One more reason that voucher money should never go to private schools!

The Christian Brothers have a rather grim history in Irish education. However, I guess they will do if the parents can't afford a Jesuit-run schoool.

[Liberal Veteran]

61. I think they should also strip search and body cavity search daily...

...to ensure no contraband is being carried onto school grounds.

I mean as long as we are teaching a group of young people that it's their duty to submit to humiliating searches by authority, let's just take it all the way.

And this is exactly what it is, make no mistake about it. It is the indoctrination of youth into a concept that they have no right to privacy and their body is not theirs.

That may not be the intent, and of course I am certain the school has the best of intentions but I find it interesting that no one told a private religious institution that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

And what kind of students will this diseased tree bear as fruit? I imagine it will be the kind of students who look at things like the Patriot Act and "sneak and peek searches" and think that it is the duty of innocent men to submit to violations of freedom and privacy for the good of all.

I cannot support this.

[eileen_d]

73. Well said, the effect on the students is what disturbs me

more than whether it is the school's or the parents' "right" to do this or not. Treating kids like criminals in school is sending lots of messages and they all make me very sad for kids growing up today.

[Kolesar]

80. So much for Americans being "ruggedly independent"

Our society is being morphed into a police state where you have no privacy.

[tom_paine]

67. Yawn, just another tiny step among thousands towards Totalitarianism

It's coming...the dark shadow of Totalitarianism over the world is greater than at any time since the Fall of the Soviet Union and perhaps since the Fall of Nazi Germany.

But at least we'll be "kinder and gentler" (for the moment).

[Endangered Specie]

75. wrong thread

Ignore

[rocktivity]

92. This is as discriminatory as it is unconstitutional

because it applies to the students only. Shouldn't the parents be assured that the school's faculty, staff and clergy are drug-free, too? They couldn't do this if the students were 18 years old or were unionized. If they're that concerned about drug use, they'd test everybody.


rocknation

[Muddleoftheroad]

93. Parents have the rights, children have fewer

If a parent tells a child to have a medical procedure done, it's pretty much a given. A simple test even more so.

[Speed8098]

94. "it's pretty much a given."

LOL, you give enough rope, eventually..........

If a parent tells a child to have a medical procedure done, it's pretty much a given. A simple test even more so.

I can find a dozen things wrong with that statement, but I'll focus on one so you can follow along.


A "Medical Procedure" would only happen at the direction of a doctor, and it would only happen if there is a REASON clearly evident to the doctor.

Which is exactly the point I am making. There has been no evidence of drug use cited that would cause the school to test the entire student body.

[Muddleoftheroad]

96. You are mixing issues

The school has every right to insist on a drug-free student body. If parents don't wish to send kids there, then they don't have to. If the parents wish to send kids there, then those same kids need drug tests.

It's simple really.

[Speed8098]

97. "The school has every right to insist on a drug-free student body.."

I never said they didn't. What I am saying is they have no "probable cause" to search these students and the parents have gone along with this outrage. In my opinion it is wrong.

What kind of message do you think these parents, and the school are sending to their children?

Is this your idea of a free country?


BTW, I didn't mix the issues, you did with your comparison of medical procedures to drug tests. Read your own post.

[ikojo]

95. I can't believe how people are just shrugging their shoulders

saying that drug testing of STUDENTS seems to be a growing trend.

I am old enough to remember what some people said in the 1980s when drug testing of POTENTIAL employees was becoming widespread. A lot of people said they were not going to pee in a cup for any employer. The government and the media got wind of this and stepped up their demonization of drug users and through combined efforts got the American people to accept drug testing for all employees whether your job was working in a mailroom (for which working high might help ya get through the day) or piliting aricraft (for which I agree there should be drug AND ALCOHOL testing because people's safety is at stake).

There was an article on commondreams.org last year about how the networks agreed to let the GOVERNMENT go over scripts about drugs and interject anti drug messages in shows, this way they would not be required to set aside time for anti drug infomercials.

[amazona]

99. private schools are like that

The parents fantasize that their kids are safer...while the little spoiled rich kids are usually the biggest druggies of them all. I'm sure they know all the usual tricks for passing the drug test so whatever.

[indie_jones]

100. mixed messages

It's ridiculous that a culture which pumps "attention deficit disorder" drugs into its kids can justify drug testing in schools AT ALL.

This will simply drive more kids to drink, or to try harder drugs that don't stay in their systems. Because we all know that drug testing primarily affects marijuana smokers, right?

I wonder ... are the teachers and clergy working at St. Patricks' drug tested? Perhaps the lay teachers are, but I'd bet a million bucks the clergy aren't.

Incidentally, I attended both private catholic and public schools. In my region, the public schools offered a better education though the same is not true for a nearby urban area. And the catholic school students got into more trouble where I lived ... more drunk driving arrests; more fights.