A rich district with a nearly 5 million dollar deficit next year and by 2020 19 million dollar recapture payment? Idk if I'd say rich. I'm glad to hear ISD drivers are randomly tested, they should. But for the average teacher that isn't a CDL driver I highly doubt they are subjected to random drug tests other than the initial test done at hiring. I'm sure the language is in their contract that could allow them to test but I don't think they practice that. If they even do an initial test during hiring. At least some of the teachers I've known don't seem too concerned but I could be wrong.
CSISD drug testing policy
27,593 Views |
200 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Oogway
dman2217 said:
What CSISD school do you work at that you cannot get a working pencil sharpener in your room?
I am in the Houston area.
And, as previously stated, teachers *are* subject to random drug tests, so I don't know what MT is going on about.
Re: public schools becoming more prison-like.
How else are the private for-profit prisons going to turn a profit? They already have entered the 'detainee' business, but they still have empty beds. Gotta fill those beds so their stock prices stay up.
How else are the private for-profit prisons going to turn a profit? They already have entered the 'detainee' business, but they still have empty beds. Gotta fill those beds so their stock prices stay up.
rhoswen said:
And, as previously stated, teachers *are* subject to random drug tests, so I don't know what MT is going on about.
All teachers are not subject to random drug tests
I have had 3 kids in CSISD. I have twice purchased $50 electric pencil sharpeners for classrooms that desperately needed them. Not the cheap ones because they break and not the most expensive ones but the ones that I thought might last through a school year. The teachers were beyond happy. One cried.
The teachers did not ask for the items but my kids reported the issues that the broken/nonfunctional sharpeners were causing. I'm quite sure that other parents have observed similar issues and pitched in regularly. At times the classrooms do not have tissues, writing materials, working headphones, staplers and many more standard classroom supplies. My kids' teachers have spent hundreds of dollars on work supplies each year---it is more common than not. And I think it is a shame that teachers have to ration kleenex and other basic supplies because the budget is so tight and yet we can consider spending tens of thousands of dollars on drug testing kids.
The teachers did not ask for the items but my kids reported the issues that the broken/nonfunctional sharpeners were causing. I'm quite sure that other parents have observed similar issues and pitched in regularly. At times the classrooms do not have tissues, writing materials, working headphones, staplers and many more standard classroom supplies. My kids' teachers have spent hundreds of dollars on work supplies each year---it is more common than not. And I think it is a shame that teachers have to ration kleenex and other basic supplies because the budget is so tight and yet we can consider spending tens of thousands of dollars on drug testing kids.
I heard the school board is thinking about doing another "rebrand" to our schools. This is going to be rolled out with the new drug testing program that has been designed to help our students. Instead of maroon and purple, they are looking at going with one color. The idea behind this is both schools will have equal colors to improve "comparability". Bright orange is the color they have decided on. The cost will only be another measly 2 million dollars for the rebrand, which is the same amount as the most recent botched rebrand. The district will also be purchasing special school appreciation uniforms for all the students at both high schools. This is very exciting for our district, and students only will be required to wear them if they want to attend a csisd high school. Campus View HS is exempt from this uniform policy, and students are encouraged to transfer there and enjoy the bean bags and flat screen TV's as well as the half empty facilities with "plenty of elbow room and chairs to sit in". Here is a mock up of the uniforms:
[img]<a href=[/img]
" />
disclaimer- 2 million is only the cost of paint used to rebrand and does not include the administrative cost, or the cost of the uniforms being purchased. The additional cost is not accounted for because it will come directly from the teacher salary budget, therefore saving our tax payers millions.
[img]<a href=[/img]
" />disclaimer- 2 million is only the cost of paint used to rebrand and does not include the administrative cost, or the cost of the uniforms being purchased. The additional cost is not accounted for because it will come directly from the teacher salary budget, therefore saving our tax payers millions.
Just stop with what you hear the board is doing.
I would bet anything I have that doesn't happen. In fact, it will never be discussed.
Don't they do enough wrong so stuff doesn't have to be made up?
I know, I know. You heard.
I would bet anything I have that doesn't happen. In fact, it will never be discussed.
Don't they do enough wrong so stuff doesn't have to be made up?
I know, I know. You heard.
cwood, it was a joke. So rest easy.cwood15 said:
Just stop with what you hear the board is doing.
I would bet anything I have that doesn't happen. In fact, it will never be discussed.
Don't they do enough wrong so stuff doesn't have to be made up?
I know, I know. You heard.
So orange is the new purple and maroon? Isn't that a show?
That's what I get for stopping halfway through!
My apologies. I have been coming over in search for information periodically but typically see a bunch of insanity.
That was the first and last post I read tonight and couldn't believe what I was reading.
For good reason!
Now back to the baseball game for me
My apologies. I have been coming over in search for information periodically but typically see a bunch of insanity.
That was the first and last post I read tonight and couldn't believe what I was reading.
For good reason!
Now back to the baseball game for me
There's no reason why you wouldn't think that was real.cwood15 said:
That's what I get for stopping halfway through!
My apologies. I have been coming over in search for information periodically but typically see a bunch of insanity.
That was the first and last post I read tonight and couldn't believe what I was reading.
For good reason!
Now back to the baseball game for me
I see. I took it as you were saying you were mad because CSISD was going to spend money on drug testing students with a privilege instead of purchasing you a pencil sharpener.
Just want to add some facts to the discussion:
In 2008 the state covered roughly 48.5 percent of the cost of public education --Legislative Budget Board.
By the 2019 fiscal year, the state support will support closer to 38 percent.
In 2016, Texas educators earned roughly $6,500 below the national average for teacher pay.
The trend is that the state will keep cutting the budget for public education. (This, in part, will drive the exodus to for-profit, privatized education, but I digress...)
Yet, a school board wants to use some of its precious funds on a drug testing program? How does that better educate students? I'd say it's irresponsible as well as over reach of authority.
It's just personal experience, but of the kids that used drugs in my high school that I knew of, one went to Notre Dame on a full scholarship, the other to Yale on a full scholarship. Both are successful with families now. It's not an endorsement that drugs lead to scholarships -- that would be as bad of a fallacy as saying that drug testing will make for a better educational environment for the students.
In 2008 the state covered roughly 48.5 percent of the cost of public education --Legislative Budget Board.
By the 2019 fiscal year, the state support will support closer to 38 percent.
In 2016, Texas educators earned roughly $6,500 below the national average for teacher pay.
The trend is that the state will keep cutting the budget for public education. (This, in part, will drive the exodus to for-profit, privatized education, but I digress...)
Yet, a school board wants to use some of its precious funds on a drug testing program? How does that better educate students? I'd say it's irresponsible as well as over reach of authority.
It's just personal experience, but of the kids that used drugs in my high school that I knew of, one went to Notre Dame on a full scholarship, the other to Yale on a full scholarship. Both are successful with families now. It's not an endorsement that drugs lead to scholarships -- that would be as bad of a fallacy as saying that drug testing will make for a better educational environment for the students.
[Find a way to contact each other and take your slap fight away from this board. -Staff]
For example.
http://www.texasaft.org/about/
I hope you're not a teacher. Right to work doesn't mean no unions. A district to choose to drug test or not to drug test is not simply their perogative, it's a legal tightrope for them with a huge legal minefield they must avoid which is costly.
Edit spelling
http://www.texasaft.org/about/
I hope you're not a teacher. Right to work doesn't mean no unions. A district to choose to drug test or not to drug test is not simply their perogative, it's a legal tightrope for them with a huge legal minefield they must avoid which is costly.
Edit spelling
"I hope you're not a teacher"
I'm really getting tired of seeing this line when people are talking about the teachers in this community. Those teachers work extremely hard to educate children and taking pot shots like that is excessive. There have been a few of you out there that have continued to say that and I don't get the reasoning as to why.
I'm really getting tired of seeing this line when people are talking about the teachers in this community. Those teachers work extremely hard to educate children and taking pot shots like that is excessive. There have been a few of you out there that have continued to say that and I don't get the reasoning as to why.
I don't see the prior post about "hope you're not a teacher" as disparaging toward teachers at all. My reading is that since the Redfin post seems misinformed (not knowing what a right to work state is, that closed shops are not legal in the USA, and that the law is FERPA - not FURPA) that someone so misinformed wouldn't be a teacher. Teachers would be more informed (and know the difference between waist and waste)
Maybe so, maybe it wasn't mean't to be disparaging, I'm sure it's in the eye of the beholder. I have just seen that line used over multiple threads in the past few weeks and I know it was mean't to be rude in those situations. It may have even been the same poster, I don't know. Just my opinion.
[See above. -Staff]
Thanks Staff, I mean that genuinely.
Take the money to be used for drug testing and secure the schools from nut jobs with a gun, bomb, etc.
Walk softly and carry a big stick! Make sure the big stick makes big boom noises and flashy bright lights.
dman2217 said:
I see. I took it as you were saying you were mad because CSISD was going to spend money on drug testing students with a privilege instead of purchasing you a pencil sharpener.
It wasn't meant to be literal, but to illustrate a point.
These people need to GO!!! Can't wait to vote them out.
There is an amazing amount of misinformation on this thread. I've been paying close attention because my son is affected by this decision. I haven't seen the most recent meeting yet, but f you have questions about it it is worth watching videos of the school board meetings over the last 3-4 months. I don't remember exactly when it started but it has been a while I wouldn't rely on the board haters on this thread for accurate information.
BOTH athletic coordinators (Huff AND Fedora) went to superentindent and asked for this. It received unanimous support when it presented to the staff at both high schools.
I only know one of these two coaches well but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have asked for it if he didn't think he had a problem.
It only affects students in extra-curricular activities and those with a parking pass. I have no issues with it. Do drugs and don't play. Simple as that. It will hopefully give my son one more reason to be able to say no.
BOTH athletic coordinators (Huff AND Fedora) went to superentindent and asked for this. It received unanimous support when it presented to the staff at both high schools.
I only know one of these two coaches well but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have asked for it if he didn't think he had a problem.
It only affects students in extra-curricular activities and those with a parking pass. I have no issues with it. Do drugs and don't play. Simple as that. It will hopefully give my son one more reason to be able to say no.
Consequences for drug users. That's what it boils down to.
More nanny state government. That's what it boils down to.techno-ag said:
Consequences for drug users. That's what it boils down to.
I don't understand why some parents are so against it. It's like they know their kids are kids are doing something they shouldn't be doing but don't want to face the reality and pretend that their kids are perfect. Or they know and just don't care.
Not trying to start an argument on this board. But some parents are more worried about their own image and popularity around this town than the well being of their own kids. They're afraid that if it gets out that their kid fails a drug test, it will portray them as bad/irresponsible parents.
Guess what, it doesn't make you a bad parent. Sometimes kids make stupid decisions because they're young and dumb and think they are responsible adults because they can drive a car and have an iPhone. Not to mention all the things that are portrayed to be "lit" on social media and television.
I think this is a good idea and has the potential to teach some of these kids responsibility and that there are consequences for bad decision making.
Not trying to start an argument on this board. But some parents are more worried about their own image and popularity around this town than the well being of their own kids. They're afraid that if it gets out that their kid fails a drug test, it will portray them as bad/irresponsible parents.
Guess what, it doesn't make you a bad parent. Sometimes kids make stupid decisions because they're young and dumb and think they are responsible adults because they can drive a car and have an iPhone. Not to mention all the things that are portrayed to be "lit" on social media and television.
I think this is a good idea and has the potential to teach some of these kids responsibility and that there are consequences for bad decision making.
Sadly, students who get involved with drugs & alcohol come from a variety of backgrounds and it is an issue that parents and schools have been grappling with for many years.
Heismenberg said:
I think this is a good idea and has the potential to teach some of these kids responsibility and that there are consequences for bad decision making.
Can someone tell me how the testing process works? I read the new policy and it's fairly silent about this (although I guess come of this will be clarified at the parent meetings?) But, for example, when a child is pulled from class (and yes, I realize everyone will know that child is being taken to be drug tested), they go where (to the bathroom?) and with whom (I know it's someone of the same sex, although here we introduce gender identity issues, but is it a school nurse/teacher or someone from the testing service?). And then the child pees in a cup and hands the cup to that person? Who then does what with it? If that's the basic process, this feels fairly uncomfortable for a student to do. I don't want to get graphic but it's not real pleasant to pee in a cup and hand your urine to someone. Doing this is typically in a doctors setting with the two-way door and with trained clinicians (maybe that occurs here?). So, if anyone knows more about the process of what all will occur, that would be great.
I haven't heard anyone against the policy focused on their own/family image or in denial about drugs in school (or their own child's potential to use). I sense it's a privacy issue and simply seen as overreach. I have also heard people talk about it not being effective based on evidence or at least it being pretty unknown as to drug testing has any effect. I also sense people feel they are targeting groups of students rather than the problem (drugs are actually as common, maybe even more so, among kids that are NOT involved in school activities so why not randomly test the entire student body if they are truly trying to address a student drug problem).
But, my question is also about the process and the kids will experience so that we don't put kids in a very uncomfortable situation.
I haven't heard anyone against the policy focused on their own/family image or in denial about drugs in school (or their own child's potential to use). I sense it's a privacy issue and simply seen as overreach. I have also heard people talk about it not being effective based on evidence or at least it being pretty unknown as to drug testing has any effect. I also sense people feel they are targeting groups of students rather than the problem (drugs are actually as common, maybe even more so, among kids that are NOT involved in school activities so why not randomly test the entire student body if they are truly trying to address a student drug problem).
But, my question is also about the process and the kids will experience so that we don't put kids in a very uncomfortable situation.
Just to see how many more times your posts will have to be banned for attacking anyone against the school board. Every post you have made until today has been deleted by staff and or you have been banned. I'm on this thread and any thread I want to be because: America.
[If you continue to try and derail every thread we can make it where you aren't on any threads because: Privately Owned Website.
AggieMom_38 said:
SnipBut, for example, when a child is pulled from class (and yes, I realize everyone will know that child is being taken to be drug tested), they go where (to the bathroom?) and with whom (I know it's someone of the same sex, although here we introduce gender identity issues, but is it a school nurse/teacher or someone from the testing service?). And then the child pees in a cup and hands the cup to that person? Who then does what with it? If that's the basic process, this feels fairly uncomfortable for a student to do. I don't want to get graphic but it's not real pleasant to pee in a cup and hand your urine to someone. Doing this is typically in a doctors setting with the two-way door and with trained clinicians (maybe that occurs here?).
- - - - -
But, my question is also about the process and the kids will experience so that we don't put kids in a very uncomfortable situation.
I'm torn here because although I get that the District is trying to address a problem, I agree with your sentiment and questions regarding the process. Even if we live in an age where employees are often tested, this is an age group that is still extremely self-conscious and easily humiliated and no matter what people avow about the 'softness' of the current youth, having a little compassion for the process of reaching adulthood with their dignity intact would be nice.
With the way the gossip mill and rush to judgement mob works in the community, I feel for anyone who gets a false positive (have no idea if that is at all common).
Edit-Shortened original quote for clarity.