Endi starter Packet
Download 356.46 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Intellectual Conformity Internal Link
- Supreme court rules constitutional in 2002
- 28 percent of schools test all students
- ’06 budget jumped testing funds 50 percent
- Reasonable Suspicion Link
- Drug tests are suspicion less but are justified under the reasonable suspicion standard
- Suspicion less testing is bad – and not constitutionally accepted. Court decision was wrong.
- Turn – increases hard drug use
- Turn: Alcohol more relevant – tests discourage educational participation
- Success rate is super low – wastes funds
- Studies find that random testing is either ineffective or INCREASES drug use
- Study quantifies in largest sample that harder drugs are traded off with schoolwide testing
- Warrant – testing implies antagonist relationship
- Studies find alt is positive learning environment – decreases drug use
- Random testing destroys trust, harms educational attainment
- TURN – testing is only successful when treatment is pursued, punitive action fails
- Alternatives can solve better – interventions and referral programs
- Non threatening education on drug issues solves
- To ensure success, testing would have to be weekly, which is impossible
- Violates 4 th Amendment
SpilloverReasonable Suspicion LinkReasonable Suspicion could spill over – (rights limitation)Dodd, Victoria J., Student Rights: Can We Create Violence-Free Schools That Are Still Free? (2000). New England Law Review, Vol. 34, p. 623, 2000. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1113167 But what have we accomplished? Students are now attending public school with the expectation and experience of a constitutionally constrained setting. This may make them in tum more receptive, as adults, to similar rights limitations, or at least complacent should adult rights infringements occur. In addition, in the past the Supreme Court has used the school setting to establish new constitutional doctrine, which then the Court later applied in broader contexts. De-segregation81 and affirmative action82 are two examples of legal doctrines that began in the public school context and then were given wide effect. The school cases discussed in this article may very well be harbingers of trends in other adult areas of rights. The Supreme Court has already granted certiorari this term to several adult search cases which could rely on student search precedents. 83 Intellectual Conformity Internal LinkIntellectual conformity internal linkDodd, Victoria J., Student Rights: Can We Create Violence-Free Schools That Are Still Free? (2000). New England Law Review, Vol. 34, p. 623, 2000. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1113167 Rights limitations may also breed intellectual conformity in education. We need only harken back to the atmosphere of public education in the 1950s to early 1960s to appreciate how educationally stifling an overly conformist atmosphere may be. Finally, violence levels in public schools, and in society at large, are decreasing. 84 In the face of such statistical trends, let us wait before taking further legislative or judicial action. Can we create violence-free schools that are still free? Hopefully, yes. Particularly, if we attack the economic, sociological, and psychological aspects of the problem, rather than just pursuing draconian legal and constitutional remedies with untold, future societal effects. Drug TestingInherencyCost = 20,000 a yearWashington Post, 4-27-2015, "School drug tests: Costly, ineffective, and more common than you think," https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/27/schools-drug-tests-costly-ineffective-and-more-common-than-you-think/ ///ENDI-DY Twenty-thousand dollars could do a lot for a typical cash-strapped school district. You could renovate a classroom, or hire a part-time teacher's aide, or buy some computers or a whole bunch of text books. The school district in Carroll County Georgia -- about 25 miles west of Atlanta -- has $20,000 to spend, but it won't be on any of those things. Instead, they're implementing a random drug testing program for their public high school students. They plan to test up to 80 students each month, according to WSB-TV in Atlanta. With school drug tests costing about $24 a pop, according to Dr. Sharon Levy of the American Academy of Pediatrics, that works out to about $20,000 per year. According to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, about 18 percent of public high schools -- nearly 1 in 5 -- have mandatory drug testing policies like the one Carroll County adopted. Supreme court rules constitutional in 2002Washington Post, 4-27-2015, "School drug tests: Costly, ineffective, and more common than you think," https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/27/schools-drug-tests-costly-ineffective-and-more-common-than-you-think/ //ENDI-DY Like most of these programs, Carroll County's only applies to athletes, students participating in other extracurricular activities (like marching band), and students who drive to school. It may seem odd that a school can require your kid to get tested simply for joining, say, the chess club. But the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of such programs in 2002. "We find that testing students who participate in extracurricular activities is a reasonably effective means of addressing the school district’s legitimate concerns in preventing, deterring and detecting drug use,” Clarence Thomas wrote for the 5-4 majority. 28 percent of schools test all studentsWashington Post, 4-27-2015, "School drug tests: Costly, ineffective, and more common than you think," https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/27/schools-drug-tests-costly-ineffective-and-more-common-than-you-think/ //ENDI-DY But schools are increasingly pushing further. For instance, a nationally-representative survey of 1,300 school districts found that among the districts with drug testing programs, 28 percent randomly tested all students -- not just ones participating in after-school programs. These schools are opening themselves up to a legal challenge. ’06 budget jumped testing funds 50 percentRyan Grim, 3-21-2006, "Drug testing doesn't reduce student drug use.," Slate Magazine, http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2006/03/blowing_smoke.html //ENDI-DY Drug testing of the American public has been steadily broadening over the past 20 years, from soldiers to grocery baggers to high-school and middle-school students. In its 2007 budget, the Bush administration asks for $15 million to fund random drug testing of students—if approved, a 50 percent increase over 2006. Officials from the federal drug czar's office are crisscrossing the country to sell the testing to school districts. Reasonable Suspicion LinkReasonable suspicion leads to generalized searches like drug testingAmy Vorenberg, Indecent Exposure: Do Warrantless Searches of a Student's Cell Phone Violate the Fourth Amendment?, 17 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 62 (2012). Available at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/bjcl/vol17/iss1/2 While T.L.O. was a case in which individualized suspicion of a particular student justified the search, there are a number of cases where the search was premised on general concerns.39 School-wide searches of lockers and backpacks are increasingly routine in public schools, as is random drug testing.40 These searches are not targeted at any one individual, but instead seek to root out contraband by searching all students. Increased drug use, violence, or other unauthorized conduct usually prompts the search.41 The Court has issued a broad test to justify general searches. School administrators must have a basis similar to that for a particularized search, but must additionally show the presence of a “compelling governmental interest” in deterring drug use or demonstrate an “interest that appears important enough to justify the particular search at hand, in light of other factors that show the search to be relatively intrusive upon a genuine expectation of privacy.”42 Suspicion Less LinkDrug tests are suspicion less but are justified under the reasonable suspicion standardAmy Vorenberg, Indecent Exposure: Do Warrantless Searches of a Student's Cell Phone Violate the Fourth Amendment?, 17 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 62 (2012). Available at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/bjcl/vol17/iss1/2 In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of suspicionless random drug testing of adults after government employers began to institute random drug testing for workers.44 When schools began to institute random drug testing on minors as a safety and prevention program in the mid-nineties, the Supreme Court weighed in on the practice. In Vernonia School District v. Acton, the Supreme Court upheld mandatory random drug testing for student athletes. Noting that the factors permitting a lawful search in T.L.O. were not exactly applicable to circumstances involving a generalized search, the Court allowed for a “reasonableness” standard even in the absence of any individualized suspicion.45 In Vernonia School District, the drug testing was prompted by concerns that student athletes were highly involved in the school’s drug culture.46 The Court articulated a new test loosening the requirement of individualized suspicion where governmental interests outweigh the level of intrusion. The Court set out three factors to consider in applying the balancing test: 1) the nature of the privacy interest upon which the search at issue intrudes; 2) the character of the intrusion; and 3) the nature and immediacy of the governmental concern and the efficacy of the means utilized to address that concern.47 Suspicion less testing is bad – and not constitutionally accepted. Court decision was wrong.Samantha Elizabeth Shutler, Random, Suspicionless Drug Testing of High School Athletes, 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1265 (1995-1996) // ENDI-JM Even if student drug use generally qualified as a compelling government interest, the Court mistakenly upheld Vernonia School District's random, suspicionless drug testing as a means to eradicate the alleged drug problem. The Vernonia decision is contrary to the majority of cases mandating that government actions in nearly all contexts rest upon, at the very least, individualized suspicion, if not probable cause. 222 Within the school context, courts have consistently stated that students do not "shed their constitutional rights.., at the schoolhouse gate."2 23 The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that, although school officials enjoy some latitude in enforcing standards of conduct, they must exercise this authority in comportment with constitutional safeguards. 224 As the Court has stated, ... state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are 'persons' under the Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. Along these lines, the Vernonia majority incorrectly stated that because school officials act in loco parentis, courts owe them a greater degree of constitutional leeway and should not hold them to the individualized suspicion standard. This proclamation contradicts the Court's prior discussion defining the relationship between school officials and schoolchildren in New Jersey v. T.L.O.: "In carrying out searches and other disciplinary functions . . . school officials act as representatives of the State, not merely as surrogates for the parents, and they cannot claim parental immunity from the strictures of the Fourth Amendment."2 26 Therefore, in T.L.O., the Court squarely held that school officials must fully comply with Fourth Amendment strictures whenever they search students on school grounds.2 27 As interpreted in T.L. 0., the Constitution specifies that under ordinary circumstances, school officials searching a student must have an individualized suspicion and belief that the search will reveal evidence of wrongdoing. 22 8 Bare individualized suspicion, however, is not enough. The T.L.O. Court further constrained the actions of school officials by stating that an individualized suspicion requirement can only pass constitutional muster if prompted by "exceptional circumstances in which special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable cause requirement impracticable."2 29 Consequently, in order for the Vernonia Policy to pass constitutional muster, the District must have tested only those students who they reasonably suspected had used or were using drugs. Moreover, even if the District could show "extraordinary" circumstances, T.L.O. dictates it may not dilute students' Fourth Amendment rights anymore than is necessary to preserve school order. Along these lines, the Court has emphasized that, "where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would 'materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school,' the prohibition cannot be sustained.” Increases useTurn – increases hard drug useWashington Post, 4-27-2015, "School drug tests: Costly, ineffective, and more common than you think," https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/27/schools-drug-tests-costly-ineffective-and-more-common-than-you-think/ //ENDI-DY But in the years since the Supreme Court ruling, numerous studies have shown little evidence of effectiveness among these programs. To wit: A 2013 study looked at 14 years of data on student drug use and found that school drug testing was associated with "moderately lower marijuana use," but increased use of other, more dangerous illicit drugs. A 2014 study concluded that drug testing was "was not associated with changes in substance use." A 2013 study comparing drug use rates among schools with and without drug testing programs found some short-term deterrent effect among students who were tested, but no effects among students who weren't tested, and no long-term effects on either drug use or intention to use drugs in the future. Turn: Alcohol more relevant – tests discourage educational participationWashington Post, 4-27-2015, "School drug tests: Costly, ineffective, and more common than you think," https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/27/schools-drug-tests-costly-ineffective-and-more-common-than-you-think/ //ENDI-DY Wonkbook newsletter Your daily policy cheat sheet from Wonkblog. Sign up More to the point, school drug programs don't test for the one drug that is most favored by high school students, and which is also the most hazardous to their health: alcohol. The tests also carry a number of significant negative consequences in and of themselves: students subject to testing may be less likely to participate in extracurricular activities. The tests may violate students' privacy by making their personal medications known to school administrators. And they may subject students to disciplinary action, like harsh long-term suspensions and expulsions, that harm their academic prospects. For all of these reasons, the American Academy of Pediatrics recently came out against the widespread adoption of drug testing in schools. "The AAP supports effective substance abuse services in schools but opposes widespread implementation of drug testing as a means of achieving substance abuse intervention goals because of the lack of evidence for its effectiveness," they wrote. The National Institutes on Drug Abuse says that "because of the conflicting findings on student drug testing, more research is needed," and that "drug testing should never be undertaken as a stand-alone response to a drug problem." Despite the research and the guidance of experts, the proportion of public high schools with random drug testing programs has risen from 14 percent in 2006 to 18 percent in 2012, according to the CDC. Schools in Ohio, New Jersey, South Carolina, Alabama, and Wyoming are currently considering mandatory drug testing programs. Success rate is super low – wastes fundsWashington Post, 4-27-2015, "School drug tests: Costly, ineffective, and more common than you think," https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/27/schools-drug-tests-costly-ineffective-and-more-common-than-you-think/ //ENDI-DY One last number for you: school drug tests tend to not yield a lot of positive results. Sharon Levy of the AAP estimates that it costs $3,000 for each positive test, or about 1 positive for every 125 students tested. That means that Carroll County, Georgia's $20,000 investment will turn up about 6 student drug users -- 7 if they're lucky. Studies find that random testing is either ineffective or INCREASES drug useRyan Grim, 3-21-2006, "Drug testing doesn't reduce student drug use.," Slate Magazine, http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2006/03/blowing_smoke.html //ENDI-DY Yet, according to the two major studies that have been conducted on student testing, it doesn't actually reduce drug use. "Of most importance, drug testing still is found not to be associated with students' reported illicit drug use—even random testing that potentially subjects the entire student body," determined the authors of the most recent study. It seems like common sense that if students are warned they could be caught getting high any day in school, they'd be less likely to risk it. And principals and the drug czar's office argue that this random chance "gives kids a reason to say no." But teens are notorious for assuming that nothing bad will happen to them. Sure, some people get caught, but not me. In addition, a student who chooses to do drugs already has more than a random chance of getting caught—adults are everywhere in this world. Someone could see her, smell smoke, see her bloodshot eyes, or wonder what the hell is so funny. And since most schools test only students who do something more than just show up for class—like join an after-school club, park on campus, or play a sport—kids can avoid the activities rather than quit puffing. Testing may not change much more of the equation than that. Such are the findings of two major studies. The first study, published in early 2003, looked at 76,000 students in eighth, 10th, and 12th grades in hundreds of schools, between the years 1998 and 2001. It was conducted by Ryoko Yamaguchi, Lloyd Johnston, and Patrick O'Malley out of the University of Michigan, which also produces Monitoring the Future, the university's highly regarded annual survey of student drug use, which is funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and whose numbers the White House regularly cites. The early 2003 Michigan study compared the rates of drug use, as measured by Monitoring the Future, in schools that did some type of drug testing to schools that did not. The researchers controlled for various demographic differences and found across the board that drug testing was ineffective; there was no statistically significant difference in the number of users at a school that tested for drugs and a similar school that didn't. The White House criticized the Michigan study for failing to look at the efficacy of random testing. So, Yamaguchi, Johnston, and O'Malley added the random element and ran their study again, this time adding data for the year 2002. The follow-up study, published later in 2003, tracked 94,000 middle- and high-school students. It reached the same results as its precursor. Even if drug testing is done randomly and without suspicion, it's not associated with a change in the number of students who use drugs in any category. The Michigan follow-up found one exception: In schools that randomly tested students, 12th-graders were more likely to smoke marijuana. Study quantifies in largest sample that harder drugs are traded off with schoolwide testingRyoko Yamaguchi Lloyd D. Johnston Patrick M. O’Malley, 2003, Institute for Social Research The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan “YES Occasional Papers Paper 2 Drug Testing in Schools: Policies, Practices, and Association With Student Drug Use” http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/Johnston_sdt_study.pdf // //ENDI-DY The third, and most important, incremental contribution of this paper is an analysis of schools that have implemented a policy of random testing in which all students in the school are eligible to be tested. Logic would suggest that this form of testing might be most likely to reduce the drug rates for the student body at large, as critics of our earlier paper have pointed out. With some effort, and somewhat to our surprise, we were able to identify seven schools in our combined five-year sample of nearly 900 schools that had implemented such a policy.2 While fewer than we might like to have for analysis purposes, this number is probably more than any other study has obtained, particularly as a result of random selection from the population. Thus it is about as representative a sample of schools actually practicing random testing as one is likely to find. Clearly, the sample size puts limitations on the power of the analyses—in other words, it is more difficult to show a given difference in outcome to be statistically significant than if the sample of schools were larger. But the absolute nature of the differences that we observed could not argue in favor of the efficacy of random drug testing students in schools. Even if we took the observed values to be true, they would suggest only a 5% to 7% reduction in the prevalence of marijuana use associated with testing and, disturbingly, a larger proportional increase in the use of other drugs, after controlling for the kinds of students and schools involved. One could generate hypotheses to explain such a phenomenon, such as that testing leads students to reduce their use of drugs that can be detected (like marijuana) and to displace their use onto drugs that they think less likely to be detected. While this is not an unreasonable hypothesis, we do not believe that enough data exist to provide an adequate test of it. Educational environmentWarrant – testing implies antagonist relationshipRyoko Yamaguchi Lloyd D. Johnston Patrick M. O’Malley, 2003, Institute for Social Research The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan “YES Occasional Papers Paper 2 Drug Testing in Schools: Policies, Practices, and Association With Student Drug Use” http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/Johnston_sdt_study.pdf ////ENDI-DY Hutton (1992) argued that too often schools employ a drug-testing policy for symbolic reasons. For example, schools may implement a drug-testing policy because drug use is a serious national concern or to set an example for a zero-tolerance policy, rather than basing the policy on well-defined local drug problems in a particular school or district. Hutton (1992) contends that a drug-testing policy sends a message of mistrust and sets the stage for an antagonistic relationship between the school and the students. While Hutton (1992) argues against enacting a drug-testing policy for merely symbolic reasons, school drug testing was still very rare in the 1990s (DeMitchell & Carroll, 1997; DeMitchell, 1995; Taylor, 1997). Further, many school districts Studies find alt is positive learning environment – decreases drug useCelia Vimont, 9-6-2013, "Study Finds Random Drug Testing Doesn’t Deter High School Students’ Substance Use," Partnership for Drug-Free Kids, http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/study-finds-random-drug-testing-doesnt-deter-high-school-students-substance-use/ //ENDI-DY Random drug testing in schools does not reduce students’ substance use, a national survey of high school students concludes. The study found students who attend schools where they feel treated with respect are less likely to start smoking cigarettes or marijuana. Students who attend schools where they feel respected, who have already started smoking, escalate their smoking at a slower rate than their peers at schools with less positive atmospheres, the study also found. Neither random drug testing nor a positive school climate was associated with a reduction in alcohol use, according to researcher Dan Romer, PhD, Director of the Adolescent Communication Institute of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. He and lead author Dr. Sharon Sznitman, currently at the School of Public Health at Haifa University in Israel, spoke about the findings at the recent American Sociological Association annual meeting. The researchers interviewed 361 high school students twice, one year apart. They asked them about their use of cigarettes, alcohol and marijuana. If they had not started using these substances at the beginning of the year, the researchers asked whether they had started to do so a year later. If they already had started using any of these substances, the students were asked whether they increased their use. Dan Romer, PhD Dan Romer, PhD Students were asked whether their school had a random drug testing program and what the social climate was in their school. “We measured this by whether students think the rules in their school are fairly administered, whether they feel they have a say in how the rules are developed and if they feel they are treated with respect,” Romer said. He found students attending school with positive school climates were 15 percent less likely to start smoking cigarettes, and 20 percent less likely to start using marijuana, compared with students at schools without positive climates. Students at schools with positive climates who already smoked had a much smaller increase in the number of cigarettes they smoked, compared with those in schools with less positive climates. In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court held that random drug tests of student athletes do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures Random testing destroys trust, harms educational attainmentDavid Heitz, 3-27-2015, "Pediatricians Say No to Random Drug Testing in Schools," Healthline, http://www.healthline.com/health-news/pediatricians-say-no-to-random-drug-testing-in-schools-033015 //ENDI-DY Moreover, random drug tests can lead to a lack of trust among students, parents, and schools, the AAP report cautions. The tests can have additional unwanted consequences when positive results are false or when school discipline and legal punishments interrupt a child’s education, ultimately harming their chances of success. “The original intent of school-based drug testing was to identify students with possible substance use to intervene with early treatment,” the authors of the AAP report wrote. TURN – testing is only successful when treatment is pursued, punitive action failsDavid Heitz, 3-27-2015, "Pediatricians Say No to Random Drug Testing in Schools," Healthline, http://www.healthline.com/health-news/pediatricians-say-no-to-random-drug-testing-in-schools-033015 //ENDI-DY “Research studies to date have shown that students often face harsh punitive consequences for positive test results, including suspension and even expulsion, and treatment may not be initiated. School suspension or expulsion has significant academic consequences, and the opportunity to ensure compliance with treatment may be lost.” The original intent of school-based drug testing was to identify students with possible substance use to intervene with early treatment. Research studies to date have shown that students often face harsh punitive consequences for positive test results, including suspension and even expulsion, and treatment may not be initiated. American Academy of Pediatrics Just over 10 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court declared such tests legal. Only children enrolled in sports or other extracurricular activities can be tested. Alternatives can solve better – interventions and referral programsDavid Heitz, 3-27-2015, "Pediatricians Say No to Random Drug Testing in Schools," Healthline, http://www.healthline.com/health-news/pediatricians-say-no-to-random-drug-testing-in-schools-033015 //ENDI-DY The AAP said schools that choose to do such testing anyway must “carefully consider and monitor the program for potential adverse effects, including decreased participation in sports, breach of confidentiality, increases in use of substances not included on testing panels, and increases in the number of students facing disciplinary action.” No doubt, random drug testing has its limitations. However, I think it is important to do what we can do to help our kids. Darren Bizarri, college sports coach But the AAP stressed that the pediatricians who make up its membership are in favor of drug abuse interventions and referral programs to get kids into full-time treatment. Non threatening education on drug issues solvesFrank Butler, February 06, 2012, Volume 15, Number 1 ISSN 1099-839X Urine Trouble: Drug Testing of Students and Teachers in Public Schools St. Joseph’s University, //ENDI-DY A school environment that is non-threatening and in which students are provided with realistic tools for understanding and dealing with the diverse social pressures they face may be a more effective goal than an admittedly more expedient program of random drug testing, if schools are meaningfully to influence students’ worlds regarding drugs. Such an environment would cultivate an earned sense of trust that students can feel with adults, especially at school. The school would value a holistic approach to drug abuse, addressing not only students but also the families and communities that are so integral to their everyday lives. In the long run such a perspective may be far more effective in changing drug-related behaviors than a “gotcha” approach that ascribes guilt only to those who “randomly” get caught Not enoughTo ensure success, testing would have to be weekly, which is impossibleDavid Heitz, 3-27-2015, "Pediatricians Say No to Random Drug Testing in Schools," Healthline, http://www.healthline.com/health-news/pediatricians-say-no-to-random-drug-testing-in-schools-033015 //ENDI-DY “Most published studies of therapeutic drug testing recommend weekly or more frequent testing to achieve a deterrent effect,” the AAP authors wrote. “High-frequency testing is costly and inconvenient for most schools and unpopular among students.” Violates 4th AmendmentDrug testing badShannon Stolzer, “Stretching the Justifiable Limit: The Ineffectiveness and Constitutional Violation of Random School Drug Testing”, 2015, http://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/law/centers/childlaw/childed/pdfs/2015studentpapers/Stolzer.pdf Several valid studies have concluded that student drug testing in public school systems is ineffective. Even worse, studies have indicated that in some schools that implement drug-testing policies, drug use actually increases in certain students, completely reversing the deterrent effect that schools have used to justify, and the Courts have held as justifiable, their “special need” for random student drug testing. Because empirical evidence now shows that such drug testing policies are either ineffective or actually harm these interests, these policies cannot be said to facilitate a school’s special interest that outweighs students’ Fourth Amendment rights to privacy. Therefore, until a more effective means to reduce drug-use amongst students in public schools, random drug testing in public school systems should be prohibited as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 356.46 Kb. Share with your friends:
|