Школьный совет Спотсвильянского округа проголосовал против обязательного тестирования учителей на наркотики

Spotsylvania County School Board votes against drug testing new teachers, school staff SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY, Va. (7News) — The Spotsylvania County School Board voted earlier this week against requiring drug testing for new hires and rehires. They also voted against drug testing elementary school teachers and staff who work with special needs children. Monday's vote was 4-3, with School Board Members Rich Lieberman, Larry DiBella, and Lorita Daniels voting for drug testing requirements, and Megan Jackson, Belen Rodas, Carol Medawar, and Jennifer Craig-Ford voting against them. The question of drug testing school employees is something the Spotsylvania County Public School's (SCPS) school board has been grappling with since a 2nd grade teacher allegedly overdosed from fentanyl in her classroom a couple of years ago. Local law enforcement said the teacher suffered from an overdose. The plea agreement says that law enforcement reported that the teacher’s husband allegedly brought her drugs at school and was also found suffering from an overdose in the school parking lot and their two-year-old daughter was with him. The teacher was convicted and sentenced to two years behind bars for possessing drugs in school and 17 counts of child endangerment and felony child neglect. "Spotsylvania County Public Schools (SCPS) staff and school board follows all state and federal laws regarding substance abuse policies and practices. There is no Virginia Code or law requiring school divisions to drug test all employees. Currently, Virginia Code requires school divisions that hold a Commercial Driver's License (CDL) for their position to be drug tested. Spotsylvania County Public Schools fully complies with this state and federal requirement," SCPS said Thursday regarding its policies and practices on drug testing and recognizing and addressing substance abuse. See their full statement below: D.C. Public Schools currently drug tests school staff. But like most school districts in Virginia and Maryland, Spotsylvania County does not drug test school employees – except for bus drivers because their special driver's licenses require it. “School divisions don't drug test teachers, not just Spotsylvania; it's not currently done anywhere in Virginia that we're aware of,” said DiBella. “I just don't think it's wrong to be the first one to do the right thing.” Lieberman and DiBella are still shocked that Spotsylvania County Public Schools doesn’t drug-test all school staff who work around children, including teachers. “We had a problem two years ago with a rehired teacher who, within a few months, OD’d in her classroom in an elementary school,” said Lieberman. “The kids couldn't go back in there for a week. I know one of the families, and it's two years later, and the kids are still traumatized by this whole thing. And we have to protect our kids. Parents are up in arms about it. Again, I have not met anybody not shocked that we're not doing this. I know people that are conservative, that are liberal. Now there is some a little pushback from a small percentage of the community not wanting to do it, but a vast majority, especially if you look at what we're actually talking about doing, we're talking about only four real drugs: opiates, amphetamines, cocaine, and PCP. We're not talking about marijuana, and we're only talking about doing it for new hires.” Spotsylvania County Superintendent Clint Mitchell opposes drug testing for school staff. A position he explained is based on his belief that drug testing would make it impossible to hire and keep employees. “Implementing such a program would completely negate the work that we have done over the last eighteen months plus in the school division on teacher retention,” Superintendent Mitchell said earlier this year. “I guarantee you that our neighbors, whether it's Stafford, Fredericksburg City, Caroline, Louisa, Orange County, Culpeper, Prince William, they're looking for you to implement such a policy because here's what's gonna happen. You think we have a problem hiring and retaining people and filling positions? You'll have vacancies because no one wanna work here.” At one point, Mitchell said two school employees tested positive for substances, arguing the data doesn't support the need for a widespread drug testing program. But DiBella points out that a handful of school employees currently get drug tested, so the data Mitchell is referring to only accounts for about seven percent of school employees being drug tested. School Board Chair Megan Jackson also has concerns about drug testing teachers and school staff. “During my discussion on the topic of drug testing, I stated my concerns on several factors,” Jackson told 7News. “The biggest concern was regarding potential legal issues that could arise from 4th amendment protections. I personally believe employees who work with students should be considered safety-sensitive personnel, but legally they are not defined that way. My other concerns surrounded a lack of data to support the need, other school divisions in Virginia implementing it and then reversing the decision shortly after, and a concern that a urinalysis test may not be effective enough for one time drug testing that anyone can prepare for when they know it’s coming.” According to the school district, it would cost just over $24,000 a year for drug testing. Supporters of drug testing hope that at least one school board member will change their mind, so if it comes up for a vote again, it will pass. Spotsylvania County School Board member Jennifer Morgan Craig-Ford, who voted against the drug testing requirements, said this: I will be voting no on the proposal to implement pre-employment drug testing. I want to be clear about why. This is not a vote to minimize substance abuse, and it is certainly not a vote to compromise student safety. It is a vote based on the evidence before us, the cost and burden of the proposal, the tools we already have available, and the kind of employer I believe Spotsylvania County Public Schools should strive to be. We have heard a great deal about one serious and highly publicized incident from several years ago. That incident was troubling, and it appropriately caused this Division to examine its procedures and make changes. But good governance requires us to distinguish between responding thoughtfully to an identified problem and adopting a broad policy years later because of a single high-profile event. The data we have been given matters. Under the lawful post-employment testing mechanisms already available to the Division, we identify only approximately two to four violations in a typical year. I have not seen evidence of a widespread substance-abuse problem among our workforce that would justify requiring every prospective employee covered by this proposal to submit to a drug test. We also have to consider what has changed since that prior incident. We have made changes to our hiring process. We are providing additional training to help administrators identify possible substance impairment. We have procedures for reasonable-suspicion testing. We have reporting mechanisms. And we provide resources for employees who voluntarily seek help. Those measures reflect something this Board has repeatedly asked of our staff, our administration, and our community: trust. We have asked people to trust that this Board will govern differently from boards of the recent past. That obligation runs both ways. We should also be willing to trust our administrators to use the tools we have given them, to act when reasonable suspicion exists, and to intervene when an employee may present a legitimate concern. I also have concerns about the cost-benefit analysis. Every dollar we spend on broad pre-employment testing is a dollar that cannot be spent in a classroom, on compensation, on staffing, or on another identified need. Every additional condition we impose on applicants is also one more barrier to recruiting employees in an already competitive labor market. Before imposing that expense and burden, I believe we should be able to demonstrate that the problem we are attempting to solve is sufficiently widespread and that this particular policy is likely to solve it. I do not believe the evidence before us does that. I also remain somewhat more cautious about the constitutional analysis than the memorandum may suggest. There is no controlling Fourth Circuit decision squarely holding that a public school division may categorically subject teachers and other school employees to suspicionless pre-employment drug testing merely because they have contact with students. Courts have reached different conclusions in different factual settings, and the constitutional analysis depends heavily on the nature of the position, the actual safety concern, the demonstrated need for testing, and the employee's privacy interests. That does not mean the proposed policy would necessarily be struck down. It means that the legal question is not so settled that we should treat legal permissibility as a reason to adopt the policy. Something can be legally defensible and still be unnecessary, expensive, burdensome, or simply the wrong policy for our Division. During my campaign, I said that we cannot turn our schools into prisons and expect better academic outcomes. I still believe that. That principle applies not only to how we treat students, but also to the culture we create for the people who choose to work here. Our employees are professionals. They are not chattel. We cannot continually add new layers of suspicion, surveillance, mandates, and control and then wonder why employees do not feel trusted, valued, or loyal to the Division. When there is reasonable suspicion that an employee is impaired, we should act decisively. When someone places students at risk, there should be accountability. But accountability based on evidence is different from treating every prospective employee as a potential addict before that person has worked a single day for us. I believe we should lead with accountability, but also with empathy, proportionality, fiscal responsibility, and common sense. We should evaluate policies based on the problems actually before us, not on fear, political pressure, or the understandable desire of any new Board to demonstrate that it is taking action. Sometimes leadership means taking action. Sometimes leadership means recognizing that the measures already put in place should be given an opportunity to work before imposing another mandate. Based on the evidence currently before me, I do not believe the demonstrated benefit of universal pre-employment drug testing outweighs its cost, its burden on prospective employees and staff, its potential effect on recruitment, or the additional legal uncertainty it creates. For those reasons, I will vote no. Although the school board shot down drug testing this week, DiBella and Lieberman were able to get the board to expand background checks. The school division is now enrolling in the FBI’s Rap Back program which will conduct rolling background checks on school employees and notify the school district if employees are ever arrested. “I don't want anything to fall through the cracks,” said DiBella. But DiBella warns that there are still loopholes that need to be addressed. “Our background check system does not check foreign government records or anything like that,” said DiBella. DiBella says student safety is top of mind for him and many parents ever since a former Spotsylvania school bus aide, who was in the U.S. for less than a year, was convicted of sexually assaulting five special needs children on a school bus. The children were between the ages of 4 and 8, and the assaults happened over the course of two weeks. Last November, the former school bus aide was sentenced to more than 200 years in prison---with all but 48 years suspended. Do other Virginia school districts drug test school employees and participate in Rap Back? Prince William, Fairfax County, and Alexandria City public schools told 7News they do not drug test teachers and school staff, except for positions that require CDLs. As far as 7News can tell, the only other school district that is participating in the Rap Back Program in Northern Virginia is Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS). FCPS entered the background check program after 7News reported in 2022 that FCPS allowed a man to work as a middle school counselor after being arrested for soliciting sex from a minor in 2020. SEE ALSO | Youngkin blasts Fairfax Co. schools for employing man convicted in sex crime with minor “FCPS is proud to be the first school division in Virginia to implement Rap Back, now in operation for its second school year,” FCPS told 7News in a statement. “This enhanced background check system, which continuously monitors the criminal records of all FCPS employees, further strengthens our layered approach to school safety and security. In addition, FCPS follows all applicable laws regarding pre-employment screening. Our employees are held to the highest standards, ensuring that each and every student can learn in an environment in which they feel safe and supported."