Last week's state Supreme Court ruling that random drug testing by Pennsylvania school districts violates students' rights to privacy has left administrators in two Mercer County school districts scratching their heads.

Superintendents Dr. Donna DeBonis of Sharon and Dr. Anthony Trosan of Reynolds indicated Monday that their respective school boards are going to take a wait-and-see attitude in the wake of the court's 32-page opinion.

Justices turned down the Delaware Valley School District's effort to have a 1999 lawsuit in Pike County dismissed. And while their ruling is not the final word on the subject, it does mean a legal attempt to block the testing can move forward.

That, in turn, means officials from Sharon and Reynolds are forced to walk a fine legal line while awaiting the Delaware Valley suit to wind its way through the court system.

Sharon has had a policy in place for athletes since 1999, and Reynolds school directors are considering enacting random drug testing next year for students in athletics, other extracurricular activities and even those seeking parking permits.

Dr. DeBonis said Sharon school directors have no plans to stop or limit drug testing, unless they are advised to do so legally.

"What's definitely going to happen is the policy is going to be referred back to the policy committee and this information will be reviewed by members of that committee," she said, noting that Sharon's screening of athletes only "could perhaps be viewed different."

Just last month, Reynolds school directors announced draft "E" of a policy that implements drug and alcohol testing and could go into effect in August 2004.

Based on last week's ruling, Trosan said board members have to decide if they want to continue to invest time in developing a policy, doing more research and having it ready if "the decision is a favorable one, or if they want to wait to see what the decision will be."

Trosan said the board already has a good understanding of what is legal when it comes to random drug testing, but the board needs to know where the guideline is going to fall before it can put together a final policy.

"We know we don't want to violate the law," he said. "We know we have an uninterpreted law here and it's a concern."

In fact, he added, "what's allowable and what isn't allowable" should be a concern to any school board.

Trosan said there is no denying a growing concern with students' increasing use of illegal substances, but said the court's real job might be issuing a decision that dictates how far school boards should go in today's society.

"The real decision appears to be about a student's right to privacy," Trosan said. "But it's also about where society wants to draw the line on who's responsible for drug screening. Is it the responsibility of a public school district to go beyond reading, writing and mathematics, to go beyond teaching and instruction to a higher level?"

Another question, he added, "is how to attack it without violating a basic right to privacy that's provided for in the Constitution.

It is that basic right justices referred to in issuing their ruling, which said the desire to discourage drug use among students is not a sufficient reason to justify "suspicionless" drug screenings that target athletes, those in other extracurricular activities and parking-permit holders.

"What lesson does a program targeting the personal privacy of some but not all students, and lacking both individualized suspicion or any reasoned basis for a suspicionless search, teach our young?" Justice Ronald D. Castille wrote. "When such a program directly implicates a fundamental right guaranteed, even to youthful citizens, under our Constitution, there must be a strong justification, grounded in fact, for the policy."

Trosan said he expects the board to discuss the matter Dec. 8 and 10; both meetings begin at 7:30 p.m.

You can e-mail Herald Staff Writer Jeff Greenburg at
jgreenburg@sharonherald.com.

030509