Rescind the St. Ignatius Drug Testing Policy

Jonathan, I encourage you to read my longer reply under another comment in this thread. But I will address your point. You say that "forcing compliance through constant surveillance does not form individuals who behave correctly. It forms individuals who behave correctly under surveillance. Instead of forming students with the ability and will to choose a life without drugs, this policy merely forces them to be a certain way until graduation." I think there are two problems underlying that argument. One, it assumes that the ONLY approach the school is taking to form students will be testing. This doesn't replace all the things the school does to educate students about drug abuse. All of those measures remain in place. Two, it ignores the way young men are formed. They don't come into Ignatius as adults, they come in as children that are closer to middle school than college. Especially in those early years, where young people are so susceptible to peer pressure and groupthink, fear of "getting caught" may be the extra impetus necessary to encouraging students to make healthy choices. Over the next four years they grow (physically, intellectually, emotionally), so that they are prepared to face those pressures when they hit college. And, if those years are drug-free, studies show they'll be more likely to avoid addiction in the future. By way of example, what about a teacher that requires his students to submit all papers to Turnitin.com? Naturally, that encourages his students not to plagiarize out of the certain fear of getting caught. But kids make mistakes, and that teacher uses those episodes to illustrate how to properly quote and attribute sources, how to paraphrase information, and he continually stresses why plagiarism is wrong and why attribution is important. The year ends and those students have developed the scholarly habits needed for success whether a teacher uses Turnitin.com or not. Turnitin.com, arguably, is

1) I'm pretty sure you're not reading anything is writing, especially because you couldn't even spell my name correctly. Re-read what I said. I pointed out how ambiguous that exact portion of the letter is. 2) You're missing the point. The lower you argue that the cost is, the less effective the policy will be. 3) That is not, and has not been any part of the discussion. There are clearly cost trade-offs to the policy, but even these are secondary to the fundamental, philosophical flaws with the program which you continue to ignore (see 5). 4) It will take a time out of teachers' and students' days. St. Ignatius definitely pays teachers and the students' time is definitely worth something as well. This isn't even accounting for the decrease in donations the school gets as a result of this policy. 5) Ignoring the most important part of the debate doesn't make you right. The fact remains that this policy changes the way that St. Ignatius forms young men. Forcing compliance through constant surveillance does not form individuals who behave correctly. It forms individuals who behave correctly under surveillance. Instead of forming students with the ability and will to choose a life without drugs, this policy merely forces them to be a certain way until graduation. That is no way to form young men, and certainly not the way for St. Ignatius High School. Until you address this point, there is absolutely no reason to discuss further.

Sean, I'm not going to engage in this discussion any further, as you're being childish. I explained the rationale for each of my numbers in my previous post. Cost - the mid-point of the range provided by the company. Number of tests - logical inference based on the only information we have available, as explained above. Additional costs - I think it's rather naïve to believe that the marginal cost of time of a counselor (not to mention a parent, or a student) is zero because they're already paid a salary. The number will stay 60, because it is both accurate and part of the issue. The only dictation here is coming from you. We've outlined a very rational argument explaining why this program is detrimental to Ignatius' own, stated values. You have chosen not to engage in that, rather focusing on half-baked issues with our arithmetic. We are also alums, and gravely concerned at the sudden implementation of a surveillance-based program, as outlined in our petition. The outpouring of support that we've received seems to indicate that we're not the only ones who disagree with you. The school has chosen to fight the drug problem, and that's obviously a good move. However, they've chosen to do so in a way that we believe is counter-productive. The school rightly cares more about the types of men they form, not just whether or not those men abuse drugs while at school. They care that they give Ignatius men the TOOLS to make the correct decisions, not the mandate to. Therefore, the school should rescind the policy.

12 years ago Featured

Joe - you should read the petition. I think it outlines a compelling argument that the policy IS punitive, it just functions by shifting the actor of the punishment to the parents of the student. This MUST be the case, as if the only mechanism of the policy were education and resources, a unit in the required health and theology classes would no doubt suffice. This is completely contrary to the mission of St. Ignatius: to give men the tools and knowledge to allow them to make good decisions by themselves. Nobody's said that Ignatius isn't ALLOWED to do this, just that they shouldn't. "If you don't like it, then leave" is essentially orthogonal to the welcoming and educational mission of Ignatius.

Only they are based on incorrect numbers. All students get tested once. After that, it's random sampling, not all students. Even if they did test everyone twice, that'd be six scholarships, not 60. 12 if you suggest "average award" of 50%. That's still a far cry from 60. And the price is closer to $30, not $50, and certainly not $60. Curious where you are getting your numbers. Mine are from the school's own info.

Go cats

AMDG

This goes against the philosophy of St. Ignatius High School

I would've transferred if they did this while I was there

Shameful that such a prestigious Cleveland school would do this--

This is an irresponsible waste of money.

Your math is bad. The cost of this program equals 60 scholarships????The tests cost roughly $30 pp, so the school is looking at around $45k. That equals 3 full tuition scholarships. If you want to argue, at least get your facts right.

While I believe the school is taking an aggressive approach towards the use of substances, I do not find Ignatius's actions wrong or inappropriate. The purpose as stated is not to punish those who have / are using drugs, rather an effort to protect the well being of the students. While the most common drug usage is marijuana, there are other drugs that are used by students such as cocaine, ecstasy, and even heroine. The fact that Ignatius is testing should not be a problem since it is only like one piece of hair, it's not that invasive or anything. It's not a blood test. In addition, St. Ignatius is a private institution meaning that they create their own policy. Students attend the high school aware of the rules that the school creates and sign off that they acknowledge the rules at the beginning of the year. If one has a problem with the rules, then he should not attend Saint Ignatius. It is as simple as that.

This is a waste of money and not a real deterrent for drug abuse.

The tests cost roughly 60 dollars per test and the school has said it will be done multiple times throughout the school year.

Wrong on both counts. All students get tested once, then it's random. There won't be four tests per year. The cost is actually closer to $30. This whole thing costs less than the school spends on student government each year.

First, please link where the administration has stated that it will just be random students throughout the school year. In both the letter to parents and the letter to alumni, it was left ambiguous as to whether the entire student body or random individuals would be tested at random intervals. Even with random intervals, four times annually is very reasonable. Second, there's a direct relationship between the efficacy of the program and the amount of funding with which it trades off. Third, even if you drop the assumption of 4 tests per student per year to 1.5, that still results in 10 FULL scholarships that could be given out. Maybe it doesn't seem like much to you, but I doubt the parents who would be paying it and the alumni who donate would think the same. Fourth, these costs don't even factor in the time of the students, teachers, and administration spent on this policy. Lastly, and probably most importantly, the cost argument is secondary to the way it goes against the . This would still be a bad policy if it cost the school nothing.

Sean - I'll chime in, given I made the final call about the number to put in. The assumptions used are as follows: $50/test - the company has quoted their price as anywhere from $40-$60, so I used the median number. 1,500 students - school enrollment numbers. 4 tests per student - I used a bit of logical inference here, as it's left ambiguous what sort of random testing will occur. Given that Ignatius wants to monitor its entire student body, it is logical that they would prefer that each student be tested in every 3-month window of the test. I expect the testing to play out as follows: one test for everyone at the beginning of August, random testing equivalent to 1,500 tests by the end of January, again by the end of April, and again by the end of finals. $6,000 scholarship award - average award amount. This adds up to 50 scholarships. I added 10 scholarships given that these tests are only the CONTRACTED expenses, not expenses in terms of implementation and miscellaneous costs. I believe that the reasoning is sound and defensible. HOWEVER, as several other posters have pointed out, it is important not to miss the forest for the trees - this testing is NOT in the interest of the school's mission, and that should take precedence over minor arithmetic disputes. It should be noted that 3/4 of the petition is about this much more pressing issue.

What your post tells me is that you've based this entire petition (not just your math) on assumptions. You haven't taken the time to actually find out what is going to happen, yet you're declaring it to be a violation of our school's values. 1) You took a stab and made up a number ($50), without any real knowledge of what the tests cost. 2) You made an assumption that students will be tested 4x per year. They won't. This is from the FAQs on the school website and matches what they emailed to all parents: "Will every student be tested? Initially, samples will be taken and analyzed for every student. After the initial sampling, random testing will be conducted throughout the academic year." 3) You make reference to "additional costs" to be incurred in implementing the tests. There are none. School employees don't do the testing. If a test comes back positive then a member of the counseling dept will be notified so they can work with the parents and student, but that's what they already are being paid to do (and already do do under the schools current policy). I know this because I bothered to ask. So, now that you're up to speed, will you revise that "60 scholarship" number on your petition? Not only is it inaccurate, it's not really this issue (as you say). You say the real problem is that it's against the values of the school. Here's what I say: you are entitled to you opinion. But you don't get to dictate what Ignatius' values are. I'm an alum, and a parent of a current student, and I don't see any contradiction. In fact, this whole announcement has opened up a really frank conversation in my family about drugs and alcohol. The program hasn't even begun and it's already having a positive effect. In my opinion, the EASY thing to do would be for the school to turn a blind eye to what is a growing problem. Instead the school has chosen to FIGHT and not to heed the wounds from critics on the sidelines. What seems like Big B

While you may have a rationale for making the assumptions that you did, the fact remains that they are still assumptions. In other words, they reflect what you believe about the program, not what you know about the program. I've tried to point out where there have been errors of fact. You're right that there's a larger argument here that has gone unaddressed. I'm happy to engage it. Hopefully we can find agreement on the following: 1) Drugs--including marijuana--are a societal ill and harmful to young people's health and social well being. 2) More students are using drugs (primarily marijuana, but increasingly prescription drugs) than we probably want to admit. 3) The school's mission involves the Jesuit concept of "cura personalis" - the care of whole student: academic, social, moral, and physical. (see http://www.ignatianspirituality.com/16996/cura-personalis/) 4) Taking measures to prevent drug abuse is consistent with the schools educational and spiritual mission. If we can agree on those points, then the question becomes whether or not this new policy is appropriate. First, I'd like to start with a historical example. In 1551, Ignatius of Loyola wrote a letter to Fr. Antonia Araoz ORDERING him (the term Ignatius used was to "submit to holy obedience"!) to take three months off to get rest, eat right, and tend to his health. Ignatius had received word that Araoz wasn't taking care of himself. After his appeals fell on deaf ears, Ignatius opted for a more direct approach: a command. The point of the story is that being "loving" (one of our Grad-at-Grad tenets) sometimes involves tough love for the good of others. One of the arguments you present against this program is that, despite its' claim to be based on a concern for student wellness, it is by nature punitive. Only it is parents, not the school, who will be meting out the punishment. When the school says the program is non-punitive, they m